How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started

[Katana]

What’s the business case for P2P on earth?

The business case?

Time.

When there is now a non stop London/Sydney flight of 17 hrs and you can cut that to 45mins of flights (maybe 90 mins in total on the vehicle) and your longest time cost is the trip in and out of your destination city, and the ongoing absurdity that is security (hint. Check how fast things move at Reagan National, where most of the US lawmakers transit through, against a regular airport).

The idea of "Breakfast in London, Lunch in New York, dinner in London" was real during the Concorde era.

How much (and how many) people would pay for that to be extended to Shanghai, Beijing, San Francisco?

As for size I'll note that people though Concorde was the smallest  vehicle that was viable for this service (despite the French initially wanting to build it smaller). AIUI most "Concorde II" design studies have gone bigger thinking at least 300 passengers.

So suborbital P2P would be vulnerable against competition of "The new Concorde / new Boeing 2707".

Similar total trip time (including trip to pad) 3~4hrs.
Perfect safety.
No new infrastructure, operable to airport London, Paris, JFK, SFO, LAX,Tokyo, HK, Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai
Flying over land in subsonic mode is OK, so the sonic boom problem only affects SFO-LAX or cities deep (>500km) inside land.
No ITAR problem, while HK, Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai are ITAR prohibitive to US rocket vehicles.
Fuel cost -- could suborbital P2P survive to this question?

[envy887]

So suborbital P2P would be vulnerable against competition of "The new Concorde / new Boeing 2707".

Similar total trip time (including trip to pad) 3~4hrs.

What assumptions does this include? A Mach 3 airliner can only go ~11000 km in 3 hours, far short of the 17,000 km from London to Sydney. And you have to add time for security and customs, which could be done in parallel to the ferry trip to the launch platform for P2P. It's not at all clear that embark/disembark would be more than perhaps 1/2 hour longer, and for flights over 3,000 km the orbital system easily makes that up.

Perfect safety.

There is no such thing.

No new infrastructure, operable to airport London, Paris, JFK, SFO, LAX,Tokyo, HK, Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai
Flying over land in subsonic mode is OK, so the sonic boom problem only affects SFO-LAX or cities deep (>500km) inside land.

Subsonic flight over land adds quite a bit of time to many routes. Flights from London to Syndey, for example, are more than 50% over land. Slowing to subsonic would triple the flight time, while flying overseas as much as possible significantly increases the flight distance.

Orbital P2P has no cruise overflight restrictions, but there are likely launch/landing location restrictions.

No ITAR problem, while HK, Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai are ITAR prohibitive to US rocket vehicles.

Landing in international waters is not an ITAR problem. Even a platform in territorial waters might not be a problem, since it's technically not "export" until it reaches land.

[docmordrid]

>
Landing in international waters is not an ITAR problem. Even a platform in territorial waters might not be a problem, since it's technically not "export" until it reaches land.

Tell that to the PRC. They'll just build and island next to your plantform, drop a bridge and....

Likely not, but just to illustrate that proximity trumps ITAR given a change in the receiving ends attitude.

[envy887]

>
Landing in international waters is not an ITAR problem. Even a platform in territorial waters might not be a problem, since it's technically not "export" until it reaches land.

Tell that to the PRC. They'll just build and island next to your plantform, drop a bridge and....

Likely not, but just to illustrate that proximity trumps ITAR given a change in the receiving ends attitude.

That's still not export.

The bigger issue with China (and some other countries) is that they will likely want a detailed understanding of the design of the vehicle to make sure it can safely operate in the locations required and to allow their citizens to use it. I doubt they would accept an FAA certification for safety, even if the FAA were to certify a spacecraft for passenger transport.

That would be at minimum an IP issue, and probably also an ITAR issue, regardless of where it lands.

[Katana]

>
Landing in international waters is not an ITAR problem. Even a platform in territorial waters might not be a problem, since it's technically not "export" until it reaches land.

Tell that to the PRC. They'll just build and island next to your plantform, drop a bridge and....

Likely not, but just to illustrate that proximity trumps ITAR given a change in the receiving ends attitude.

That's still not export.

The bigger issue with China (and some other countries) is that they will likely want a detailed understanding of the design of the vehicle to make sure it can safely operate in the locations required and to allow their citizens to use it. I doubt they would accept an FAA certification for safety, even if the FAA were to certify a spacecraft for passenger transport.

That would be at minimum an IP issue, and probably also an ITAR issue, regardless of where it lands.

Chinese people aboard American rocket ship is export, already happened to VG SS2.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/virgin-voyage/why-chinese-citizens-cant-buy-tickets-spaceshiptwo-n20346

Giving away Chinese market is yet not so important, unless you want to replicate the Shanghai video in Musk's PPT slides.

Time cost of offshore spaceport and hub mode does matters.

The margin of time schedule (vs Concorde) becomes razor thin, concerning additional steps before liftoff and after landing.

BFS vs SabreSkylon may even lose on travel time.

[spacenut]

90% of the worlds people live within 300 miles of an ocean or sea, not near deserts.  I think man made islands slightly off shore from large cities near oceans would be more practical.  Or man made platforms like oil platforms.  Returning to earth will likely be within a safety range of a city say 3 miles or 5 miles offshore.  I know when one shuttle failed, parts were found over Texas and it was going to land in Florida.  So for the US a launch site may be off the east coast of Florida while a landing site may be off the west coast of Florida to avoid land.  That would require a ship to take the BFS back to the East side or the Cape for relaunch. 

[su27k]

Similar total trip time (including trip to pad) 3~4hrs.

Concorde can fly from New York to Paris in 3.5 hours, the distance is about 5840km, that's no where near what a BFR can do in one trip.

Perfect safety.

If we go by Concorde's record, LoC = 1 in ~85,000, far from perfect

[Hog]

Similar total trip time (including trip to pad) 3~4hrs.

Concorde can fly from New York to Paris in 3.5 hours, the distance is about 5840km, that's no where near what a BFR can do in one trip.

Perfect safety.

If we go by Concorde's record, LoC = 1 in ~85,000, far from perfect

But far from IMPERFECT.  I'd fly my family as their exclusive Earth travel aboard Concorde over some quacked half baked idea of Earth-to-Earth travel aboard a paper rocket.  There were massive restrictions on Concorde operations in relation to noise, that alone IMO is a non-starter for the dream-machine.

Yoda said, when talking about space travel. "Airplane travel, it is not."

[colbourne]

Rather than aiming at  1st class  passengers, I recommend trying to get as many people as possible on board. Many people will be willing to pay a high price because of the adventure element of the flight. As it is so fast comfort is not such an issue.

Connect a few major hubs, aiming for the long distance flights where the biggest time savings are made.

e.g Australia, China Sea (servicing China, Philippines, Japan , Taiwan), North Sea (servicing Europe), LA and New York

I expect to see a few flights soon after BFR is built to prove the concept (and to set the record ).  This is the cheapest way for the average person to get into space, so I expect many people would pay $100,000 for a trip. Especially if they want to travel half way round the world. I expect many people would take the rocket one-way and return by normal aircraft until the cost of flights on BFR drops to a reasonably competitive price, with traditional scheduled airlines.

[LMT]

Many people will be willing to pay a high price because of the adventure element of the flight...

This is the cheapest way for the average person to get into space, so I expect many people would pay $100,000 for a trip...

Conceivably, yes.

Moreover you might maximize the "adventure element" by giving passengers a high-value destination: e.g., a small Mars-gravity space station, with attractive features.  2028 seems feasible, if SpaceX plans for artificial gravity R&D early enough.

At the tourist station SpaceX wouldn't need to deal with city-spaceport regulations, airliner competition, etc.  So might this logically be the first and most immediately profitable destination for SpaceX "Earth-to-Earth" passenger service?

New post:  First Tourist Station.

[philw1776]

I've heard Elon speculate about Mars trips, point-to-point and lunar bases but never about an artificial gravity space station.  I conclude that if/when such a AG station becomes reality it will be with someone else's money and engineering resources.

[Ludus]

I've heard Elon speculate about Mars trips, point-to-point and lunar bases but never about an artificial gravity space station.  I conclude that if/when such a AG station becomes reality it will be with someone else's money and engineering resources.

That’s in Jeff Bezos’ domain. He’s got the franchise on the O’Neill millions of people living is near earth/moon space thing.

[philw1776]

I've heard Elon speculate about Mars trips, point-to-point and lunar bases but never about an artificial gravity space station.  I conclude that if/when such a AG station becomes reality it will be with someone else's money and engineering resources.

That’s in Jeff Bezos’ domain. He’s got the franchise on the O’Neill millions of people living is near earth/moon space thing.

Precisely.  That's why I do not think a LEO AG space station will be a BFR Earth to Earth starter.

[LMT]

I've heard Elon speculate about Mars trips, point-to-point and lunar bases but never about an artificial gravity space station.  I conclude that if/when such a AG station becomes reality it will be with someone else's money and engineering resources.

That’s in Jeff Bezos’ domain. He’s got the franchise on the O’Neill millions of people living is near earth/moon space thing.

Just to ballpark, profit from 2 SpaceX tourist station flights (2 x ~100 passengers) could conceivably equal recent profit from a Falcon 9 launch (~$25M). 

Passenger flights would presumably be more streamlined and routine than F9 launches, and in most respects easier.

In which case, why lose the easy money, and good press, by refusing Marsliner tourism?   Were you in Musk's shoes, or perhaps Bezos', would you refuse it?

[philw1776]

I've heard Elon speculate about Mars trips, point-to-point and lunar bases but never about an artificial gravity space station.  I conclude that if/when such a AG station becomes reality it will be with someone else's money and engineering resources.

That’s in Jeff Bezos’ domain. He’s got the franchise on the O’Neill millions of people living is near earth/moon space thing.

Just to ballpark, profit from 2 SpaceX tourist station flights (2 x ~100 passengers) could conceivably equal recent profit from a Falcon 9 launch (~$25M). 

Passenger flights would presumably be more streamlined and routine than F9 launches, and in most respects easier.

In which case, why lose the easy money, and good press, by refusing Marsliner tourism?   Were you in Musk's shoes, or perhaps Bezos', would you refuse it?

Goalposts moving.  The responses were to SpaceX's AG station being a high value destination enabling BFR point to point.  There is zero indication that SpaceX is going to build a AG station.  Were they interested it would have been in their P2P presentation.  I predict it will not be an "I forgot this"part of SpaceX's plans revealed in 2018 either.

What is Marsliner tourism?  An orbital ride in a BFS or BO orbiter?
Of course Bezos is interested in such.  That's his game.  He's said so.  People living and working in space.

Rides in a BFS to LEO for some to be determined period would be an excellent precursor to P2P BFR. 

FWIW I do not think any P2P service will happen before the 2040s at the very earliest.

[LMT]

I've heard Elon speculate about Mars trips, point-to-point and lunar bases but never about an artificial gravity space station.  I conclude that if/when such a AG station becomes reality it will be with someone else's money and engineering resources.

That’s in Jeff Bezos’ domain. He’s got the franchise on the O’Neill millions of people living is near earth/moon space thing.

Just to ballpark, profit from 2 SpaceX tourist station flights (2 x ~100 passengers) could conceivably equal recent profit from a Falcon 9 launch (~$25M). 

Passenger flights would presumably be more streamlined and routine than F9 launches, and in most respects easier.

In which case, why lose the easy money, and good press, by refusing Marsliner tourism?   Were you in Musk's shoes, or perhaps Bezos', would you refuse it?

Goalposts moving.  The responses were to SpaceX's AG station being a high value destination enabling BFR point to point.  There is zero indication that SpaceX is going to build a AG station.  Were they interested it would have been in their P2P presentation.  I predict it will not be an "I forgot this"part of SpaceX's plans revealed in 2018 either.

What is Marsliner tourism?  An orbital ride in a BFS or BO orbiter?
Of course Bezos is interested in such.  That's his game.  He's said so.  People living and working in space.

Rides in a BFS to LEO for some to be determined period would be an excellent precursor to P2P BFR. 

FWIW I do not think any P2P service will happen before the 2040s at the very earliest.

No goalpost moving, no.  Space tourism was suggested here in the very first post, for consideration in the same timeframe.  The 'Marsliner' idea is just one variant:  truly high-end tourism [pun], potentially useful in starting the Earth-to-Earth business.  It would of course leverage the Earth-to-Earth systems, in a first and plausibly profitable application.

As for "presentation" tea leaves:  when thinking through possibilities I suggest we consider this or any idea on its merits, and not ask a PR department's permission.

[docmordrid]

I've heard Elon speculate about Mars trips, point-to-point and lunar bases but never about an artificial gravity space station.  I conclude that if/when such a AG station becomes reality it will be with someone else's money and engineering resources.

The attached GIF is of 2001's Discovery centrifuge main deck

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1004936605797212160?s=19

Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
 Running track in @SpaceX BF Spaceship will look something like this
12:02 AM - Jun 8, 2018

[spacenut]

Earth to Earth transport might start as military cargo transport to bases where supplies are needed.  Later after proven safe, maybe personnel.  This could eventually lead to passenger transport.  This is what happened to big bomber technology after WWII.  Larger rocket transports like BFR/BFS for the military would lead to passengers later. 

[Coastal Ron]

I've heard Elon speculate about Mars trips, point-to-point and lunar bases but never about an artificial gravity space station.  I conclude that if/when such a AG station becomes reality it will be with someone else's money and engineering resources.

The attached GIF is of 2001's Discovery centrifuge main deck

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1004936605797212160?s=19

Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
 Running track in @SpaceX BF Spaceship will look something like this
12:02 AM - Jun 8, 2018

And then after someone posted a video of an astronaut running around Skylab and said:

Wouldn't it be more like Skylab in this gif? The IPS won't have spin gravity. (Right?)

Then Musk replied:

Yeah, actually closer to Skylab, but with 50% larger inner diameter

So no artificial gravity for the ship, just passengers generating their own simulated gravity with exercise.

[oiorionsbelt]

EM also answered a twitter question about AG on the BFS saying they may be tethered in the future but not initially.
Someone better at searching Twitter than me can likely find this.