And doing P2P flights with the BFR design doesn't make much sense: you don't need the vacuum raptors or the header tanks, so it really needs a different vehicle. And once you are designing a new vehicle, you might as well optimize the pax capacity for the market, which probably means a smaller vehicle altogether.
How about a U-shaped underwater hyperloop.. Spit the upper stage out at 1000km/h
What does everyone think?
We should be looking to further develop electric propulsion in air transport as NASA are hoping to do in the X Plane program not wasting time on flights of fantasy like this.
Quote from: Star One on 09/29/2017 09:33 amWe should be looking to further develop electric propulsion in air transport as NASA are hoping to do in the X Plane program not wasting time on flights of fantasy like this.Electric propulsion is also fantasy. What is going to power your electric jet? Batteries? What sort of batteries now exist that have the energy density to weight ratio necessary and won't burst into flame? I could go on but it would be outside the scope of the thread.Equally fantastic. Actually more fantastic as at least the technological basis exists for point to point travel with a rocket, where as constructing a functional electric large high speed aircraft is outside of existing technology at this time.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 09/29/2017 09:38 amQuote from: Star One on 09/29/2017 09:33 amWe should be looking to further develop electric propulsion in air transport as NASA are hoping to do in the X Plane program not wasting time on flights of fantasy like this.Electric propulsion is also fantasy. What is going to power your electric jet? Batteries? What sort of batteries now exist that have the energy density to weight ratio necessary and won't burst into flame? I could go on but it would be outside the scope of the thread.Equally fantastic. Actually more fantastic as at least the technological basis exists for point to point travel with a rocket, where as constructing a functional electric large high speed aircraft is outside of existing technology at this time.Guess you’ve never heard of solid state batteries, or look up NASA’s developments in electric propulsion before making pronouncements on things.http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-solid-state-battery-toyota-dyson
I think I am just more cynical and untrusting than everybody else. Elon Musk is a show man. I think the airplane thing is misdirection.. even if entirely true.It is not what is important. Whether it is justifiable or not, it obviously could only come about long after ITSy was a mundane tool for space, which accepts much higher risks and can begin with only a single launch pad. The battle for ITSy would be won so this is automatically in the idle speculation category, IMO.
Quote from: Tonioroffo on 09/29/2017 06:27 amWon't ITAR cause issues for this? I was thinking of that when the destination shown in the video was China...
Won't ITAR cause issues for this?
It's not as if SpaceX is going to export BFR to China. BFR will fly there, and then back again. Similar to airlines, however mostly above the atmosphere in stead of in it.
It is not what is important. Whether it is justifiable or not, it obviously could only come about long after ITSy was a mundane tool for space, which accepts much higher risks and can begin with only a single launch pad. The battle for ITSy would be won so this is automatically in the idle speculation category, IMO.
What about the booster? It doesn't fly around the world like the ship. It stays at the launch site.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 09/29/2017 09:55 amI think I am just more cynical and untrusting than everybody else. Elon Musk is a show man. I think the airplane thing is misdirection.. even if entirely true.It is not what is important. Whether it is justifiable or not, it obviously could only come about long after ITSy was a mundane tool for space, which accepts much higher risks and can begin with only a single launch pad. The battle for ITSy would be won so this is automatically in the idle speculation category, IMO.Obviously you aren't the only cynic then I am thinking the exact same thing right now. The point to point thing made me question the logic of the entire proposal. He would have done well to leave that out of it.
Quote from: calapine on 09/29/2017 08:28 amIt's the most minute of the details, but I think typical to the Musk approach:The video says "Paris to New York 30 minutes" Where in (near) Paris would he launch a BFR-sized rocket? CNES must feel like idots shipping Ariane to Kourou all the years when they could just lift-off from Paris-Orly Terminal 1. It can be a few tens of miles outside of Paris (like many modern large commercial airports). Once you remove the need for a safe location to dispose of spent booster stages, the space requirements and debris hazard from a rocket launch site drops down precipitately. There is still a danger from anomalies but this is equally true for those living in the farmland around CDG.
It's the most minute of the details, but I think typical to the Musk approach:The video says "Paris to New York 30 minutes" Where in (near) Paris would he launch a BFR-sized rocket? CNES must feel like idots shipping Ariane to Kourou all the years when they could just lift-off from Paris-Orly Terminal 1.
I'm guessing that SpaceX is using a smaller version of the ITS booster for ferries to and from certain cities while they are using the full-sized version for trips to Mars and back.