EPTAnd it's over.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 140
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
And it's over. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 29 2017 14:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Finally the BFR could be used as a planetary transport. https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/913634939102523392 And it's over. What a joke. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
 ![[image loading]](http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/0/A-SpaceX-BFR-rocket-lands-in-Shanghai-1091000.jpg) Time to up your game Boeing & Airbus. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On September 30 2017 09:48 thePunGun wrote: Who needs planes, when you can get from New York to Shanghai in 30 minutes by BFR! Time to up your game Boeing & Airbus. As neat as the concept is, it's hard to imagine there being less than a million dollars in marginal cost per flight. Even cramming 200 people in leaves you at a $5,000 trip and that's wildly optimistic (like, an order of magnitude in a few different places). Realistically, the cost of a ticket on a flight like that is exceedingly unlikely to fall below $50,000 when you factor in the level of luxury expected, profit margins, a more realistic cost-per-flight estimate, cost of those seaports, etc. As interesting as the concept is (and as neat as doing it for space tourism purposes would be), it's simply not going to be financially reasonable for a long ass time. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On September 30 2017 11:45 Sn0_Man wrote: As neat as the concept is, it's hard to imagine there being less than a million dollars in marginal cost per flight. Even cramming 200 people in leaves you at a $5,000 trip and that's wildly optimistic (like, an order of magnitude in a few different places). Realistically, the cost of a ticket on a flight like that is exceedingly unlikely to fall below $50,000 when you factor in the level of luxury expected, profit margins, a more realistic cost-per-flight estimate, cost of those seaports, etc. As interesting as the concept is (and as neat as doing it for space tourism purposes would be), it's simply not going to be financially reasonable for a long ass time. I'm willing to pay $5k to fly from Miami to Shanghai in 40mins. Shit $3-5k is first class in most airlines. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On September 30 2017 11:45 Sn0_Man wrote: As neat as the concept is, it's hard to imagine there being less than a million dollars in marginal cost per flight. Even cramming 200 people in leaves you at a $5,000 trip and that's wildly optimistic (like, an order of magnitude in a few different places). According to Musk's IAC presentation the payload volume is 825 cubic metres (bigger than an AB380) and the Mars transit configuration has 40 cabins already. The Airbus A380 passenger capacity is about 540 people, a Falcon 9 launch costs are currently $62.000.000,- per launch that'd be $114.814,81 per seat ( witout any revenue or tax ofc) for a 39 minute flight from NYC to Shanghai, almost a bargain.  | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
and a plane also has way better shape for passenger density and people forking over for this trip won't be willing to accept economy type seating and density either. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On September 30 2017 12:49 LegalLord wrote: I'd rather teleport, really. Would be faster. Considering I'd have to die and a copy of me'd be reassembled at the traveling destination...in my place... ...39 minutes are about a GoT episode, so I guess I'd rather spend 39 minutes watching someone else getting killed off, than experiencing it myself.  edit: Keep in mind, the seating for a rocket launch isn't exactly comparable to the seating for an airline and a plane also has way better shape for passenger density and people forking over for this trip won't be willing to accept economy type seating and density either. I'm guessing launch costs will be way cheaper in the mid 2020s, when this might actually become reality and it'll definitely only be feasible for 1% fat cat CEOs and such at first. But in the end it's plausible this could actually replace airplanes, Boeing had a similar concept in the mid 2000s (an airplane leaving earth's atmosphere) but dropped it due to costs and it turned into the Boeing Nasa collab project: CST-100 Starliner | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 30 2017 13:02 thePunGun wrote: Considering I'd have to die and a copy of me'd be reassembled at the traveling destination...in my place... ...39 minutes are about a GoT episode, so I guess I'd rather spend 39 minutes watching someone else getting killed off, than experiencing it myself. You say that, but then see what you say when you're running late for a meeting in Shanghai in 30 minutes. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
On September 30 2017 13:36 thePunGun wrote: Nah, I've watched too much Star Trek to ever trust a 'transporter'. I'd rather miss a meeting than dealing with freak accidents like Tuvix the 'humanoid fusion', Riker's Transporter Twin or traveling to a Mirror Univerese. And all throughout Star Trek they laugh at people who don't want to use the transporters, because they are "incredibly safe" Regarding the "rocket to travel" concept, i don't think i am entirely happy with that. Rockets are way worse enviromentally than a plane, so just using that so rich people can get quicker from a to b seems like a waste to me. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21677 Posts
On September 30 2017 16:25 Simberto wrote: And all throughout Star Trek they laugh at people who don't want to use the transporters, because they are "incredibly safe" Regarding the "rocket to travel" concept, i don't think i am entirely happy with that. Rockets are way worse enviromentally than a plane, so just using that so rich people can get quicker from a to b seems like a waste to me. Now consider the billions of transports being done every day and the % of times it goes wrong and they are indeed incredibly safe. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
On September 30 2017 19:52 Gorsameth wrote: Now consider the billions of transports being done every day and the % of times it goes wrong and they are indeed incredibly safe. Dunno, we do not know how many of the billions of other transports don't go wrong, we only know how many of the Enterprise/Voyager transports do go wrong. I haven't done the maths, but i'd guess it is at least one percent of the transports that we see that go wrong. Even if it were only a promille, that would mean that if you transport to your work and back, and maybe to one other place each day, you will end up with one transporter clone/mixed up with other dude/mirror universe incident per person per year on average. My guess is that Star Trek people simply think that that is normal, just how we think that traffic jams and car accidents are normal. Add to that all the times when the transporter mysteriously doesn't work due to weird radiation in the upper atmosphere, ionic turbulences, or other narrativum incidents, and you have a less than reliable way of transportation. Of course, many of the series situations are not standard life situations, maybe the transporter works better in standard situation than in edge cases. I think we digress from the topic of this thread, however. | ||
| ||
