A fully fueled BFR has fuel cost that makes one wonder how they could reach the price per ticket for 100 passengers. For a very low orbit, like 180km, how much delta-v does the BFB need to provide? How much propellant would they put on it?
Basically I figure you'll want BFR ports in deserts or patches of sea that aren't used by shipping traffic, which are central to the continent they are in but will be in out of the way places with only an hour or two flight to your final destination. For a bit of fun I've made and attached a notional map of BFR spaceports - mostly in deserts, except for Kwajalein and maybe one of the barrier islands off the coast of the Netherlands would be best for Europe.
<snip> and maybe one of the barrier islands off the coast of the Netherlands would be best for Europe.
In this case it's the bit where they move 100 people 90+ metres into the air without any problem.I doubt it will be a 90m high moveable escalator.
I've learned it's much more interesting to see what SX leave out of their videos. In this case it's the bit where they move 100 people 90+ metres into the air without any problem.I doubt it will be a 90m high moveable escalator.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/29/2018 03:48 amAnd I dare say that VTVL actually reduces infrastructure costs as you don't need vast tracks of land for a runway. Not if you want to operate out in deep water you don't.
And I dare say that VTVL actually reduces infrastructure costs as you don't need vast tracks of land for a runway.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/30/2018 06:21 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/29/2018 03:48 amAnd I dare say that VTVL actually reduces infrastructure costs as you don't need vast tracks of land for a runway. Not if you want to operate out in deep water you don't. Even better! Land costs are even lower. What is the value of land of an airport?
Quote from: mikelepage on 04/30/2018 06:11 am<snip> and maybe one of the barrier islands off the coast of the Netherlands would be best for Europe.Absolutely zero chance this will happen. Most of those are nature reserves, and the bits that aren't are big tourist destinations. An offshore rig in the middle of the North Sea is far more likely.
Ummm... BFR isn’t using RP-1. Where did you get that idea?It’s super odd that you’ve been having conversations on this forum for years and didn’t realize this...
Boring Company Hyperloop will take you from city center under ground & ocean to spaceport in 10 to 15 mins
In response to a TED Talks tweet about Gwynne Shotwell's recent talk:QuoteBoring Company Hyperloop will take you from city center under ground & ocean to spaceport in 10 to 15 minshttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/996691566851801088
I don't know that being inland is going to be too much of a showstopper with this, especially if hyperloops are going to be used for transport to and from the launch site. There are plenty of decommissioned air force bases dotting the United States that are remote enough to work as P2P launch sites. SpaceX could place all of the ground side operations (baggage check/claim, security, etc.) in the city that is being served, transport from there to the launch site, fly and reverse the sequence on the other side. That way, you can staff the thing without having to have people live in the middle of nowhere.
Chicago could have a platform in Lake Michigan. But is the problem for landlocked cities a lack of launch sites, or noise? The US does not currently permit supersonic overflights of the country due to sonic boom, and I would think the problem would be similar for BFR. In addition, overflight of populated areas brings potential for huge loss of life if the vehicle fails, which is another reason most launches are over ocean.