This also bring in a point! What if collisions happens? Also whats the point of having ur packages shipped in a few hours (Includes truck delivery timing) VS days or a day cheapers and also who would pay about 50 dollars for that...
@@kundigan5748 I was thinking the same about speed. The 747 was designed to double over as a cargo plane during a time when the future of passenger travel seemed to be supersonic - the reasoning being that if the 747 failed in the long term as a passenger plane, development costs could still be recuperated since cargo doesn't get uncomfortable on long flights.
You have that backwards. Subtract war, and we wouldn't have any of this technology. We wouldn't have flight at all. We wouldn't have electricity or engineering/science as you know it.
I’m an airline pilot, but I would love to see these rockets used for logistics and passenger use. I really dislike having to spend 17 hours in a middle seat in economy to go to the other side of the world. I’d gladly pay $1,500 to go from New York to Tokyo in 30 minutes.
Man, i imagine some rich dude is going to be the first human ever to travel to all continents in one day, excluding Antarctis unless they build a landing zone there LoL
Nah, not with the expected cost of the trip and the amount of people the rocket can support per trip. If all goes as planned the only thing the rocket will need is the fuel, and it's fuel will be superchilled Methane.
Many people will pay 12500 (x10 your ticket) just to SEE the curvature of the Earth and feel the lack of gravity for a few minutes [the actual travel to "the other side of the planet" for vacations is just a bonus].
@ Ben Staker : For long SPACE travel is designed to house 100 people [then for a quick suborbital flights anywhere between 500 to 1000 is not even "optimistic"]. Logistics to bring them "inside of it" & secure them on their seats is the main limit. -> The methane and oxigen can be "made" literally "from the air and seawater" using electricity [via solar panels, wind and batteries]; so it is CARBON NEUTRAL.
The BFR is only made as an alternative to commercial planes, it's not meant to compete with them. People will still pay the extra money to get from A to B 25 times faster no matter the price.
Some will, but remember Concorde. At first, it was luxurious (for the time) and fast, but also crazy expensive (and even then, few people bought tickets). During the later years, Concorde was less luxurious than a ticket that cost way less (a subsonic flight) and just as expensive. The lack of ticket sales was one of the factors that led to Concorde's retirement.
@@robertheal5137 I'm talking specifically about the later years during Concorde's decline. In the late '80s or early '90s, British Airways introduced 'cradle seats', which allowed flyers to sleep easier on long haul flights. Then in 1995, BA introduced fully lie-flat seats in first class. Other aspects of "luxury" would probably have remained the same, such as food and drink.
Although it's not nearly as exciting as moving people, super Express package delivery would seem to be the first place to start with Earth to Earth travel on the BFR. (Just like it did with the new/risky air travel)
Too small a market for the price and the flexibility. Between most places you can get a packge delivered within one day already. And in the beginning, you will only have very few hubs. So on many connections you will probably not be faster. Also, you will only be able to have such a flight once a day per destination anyway. So I don't expect this any time soon.
freight is way cheaper to move than people. air freight moving to "space" freight? ain't nobody gonna pay for that. people on the other hand, would pay $1500 compared to $800 to be there in a fraction of time.
@@ThabangLekoane Actually, that makes it worse. What causes jet lag is the time zone changes, so making the journey quicker would give you even less time to adapt.
well, that remains to be seen.. the time difference might be bigger, but because of the shorter travel time (and likely more cabin space than a cramped plane) you are possibly less exhausted after the travel, which maybe makes adaption to the time change easier..
fladave99 Mills it’s not going into space space it’s just going way farther into the atmosphere, you won’t even feel weightlessness. So it will be much cheaper than regular space shuttles and it will be reusable too further reducing the price. And about all that other stuff idk where you got that info but it’s all false Elon isn’t getting anything from taxpayers and the gas car companies don’t give him any share of what they sell.
fladave99 Mills did you read the article? If you did you would know tesla is not making anyone do anything. It's because the other automakers are not following government mandates for their vehicles efficiency so they have to purchase teslas surplus. ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT PAYING THE $ ITS THE AUTO COMPANIES! If they took that money and invested it into making more efficient vehicles they wouldn't need to pay it to tesla. Also the one time tesla did get bailout money from the gov tesla actually paid it back with interest unlike the other car companies that did not pay back and some required more money. Funny how you fail to mention the subsidies given to big oil. They are some of the most profitable companies but they still take gov subsidies at least tesla is moving the auto industry into the right direction.
You forgot about the thrill and experience of literally flying trough space. People are going to pay for that. There will also be a small portion of the population that prefers time savings over ticket price. And yes, even tough the BFR E2E will only cover a small niche of air travel, I think it will be a huge succes.
Idealistic simpletons lol. You have 0 understanding of what it takes to actually launch a rocket. This will never be a thing and interplanetary travel among the common citizen most certainly will not happen within your life times. Sorry to rain in on your parade.
Thats what we have now, for people flying first class. Before we had the concorde that was faster, but uncomfortable. Now we have slower but comfortable.
Elon mentioned in the #dearmoon mission that G forces could be lowered in exchange for more fuel/ less payload. With 100,000 KG to LEO capacity, this seems like a non-problem.
It is a non issue. Teslas electric cars acceleration is around 2 Gs for proformance models. All the same some people genuinely dont like roller coasters, just like some people dont like Tomatoes.
Ok so lets say the BFR follows a ICBM Ballistic Trajectory for its flight. It would pull about 100Gs on Acceleration during Liftoff and about 25 to 50 during Reentry. Thats because the Missile dosnt need to land. So if the BFS would follow the same Trajectory it would have the same G Forces, at least during Reentry. Lets be gentel and say that the BFS would use a slower Trajectory and experince about 10 Gs During Reentry. That would kill people but fuck it. Lets say the Ship slows down in Orbit from 6km/s to 4. That would cut the G Froces but also shorten the travel distance even more. The fact ist that a Ballistic Trajectory is a very different thing then a Orbit. If you are in Orbit, you can Reenter very flat so the G Forces dont kill everybody. Thats how the Space Shuttle did it. A Ballistic Trajectory is very Short and fast. And the reenter angle is very steep. Like so Steep that you get those G Forces of up to 50 Gs.
It’s a good option for the normal average citizen, because let’s say you or someone you know was going on a vacation to say... London, and they were departing from Shanghai. Well, to get to London, the BFR would launch from Shanghai and would leave the earths atmosphere (like explained in the video). Not only would this reduce the time difference but it would provide 2 vacation experiences, as the passengers would get to be technically, in space! It is a marvellous opportunity, and would be lovely!
@@allbadtakes Of course, unfortunately, they would all somehow calculate that they are looking at some sort of videoscreen with a fake image (not so LOL)
@@voicetube They are gullible enough to believe the earth is flat so I'm sure they would be gullible enough to step into an airlock and open the outer door to have a more convincing look (we can but hope :-) )
Reality of BFR travel: New York to London flight time - 30 minutes Check in - 30 minutes Good for nothing TSA security - 45 minutes Pre-boarding 200 passenger - 60 minutes The boat ride to the rocket - 15 minutes
The BFR launch doesn't necessarily need to take place out in sea to prevent disturbances to populated areas. As you said, it just needs to launch/land far from people. So they could basically just launch it in deserted areas.
Yeah, problem is nobody lives in deserted areas. So there goes the whole 40 min travel time thing if you're spending 5 hours to get out in the middle of nowhere.
H3ckster, not unless someone reinvents the laws of physics. And half the problem is not the rocket engine, it's the sonic booms. Same reason the Concord was never successful.
I agree the transport required to get to/from a deserted area would be well worth doing over having to travel from a coast if you're trying to go inland.
I think buisnessmen will appreciate to not need an entire travel day to get to other side of the planet. Also starting could be a lot smoother, of course increasing fuel costs, but that is not too concerning, since long distance buisness class tickets are several thousand dollars. If I could choose between a 14 hour flight and a 30 min space flight with maybe a continentel flight of 2 hours, what results in probably (with boarding, check in, smaller waiting times) in 4-5 hours to get from your starting point to your final destination, I would choose the short variant, because you could do it after breakfast and be home/at work at noon, or have a meeting in the morning and fly home and eat dinner with my wife.
But businessmen can just travel overnight in business class with a lay-flat bed, so that's no time lost really as you travel when you sleep, and I really can't see BFR being cheaper than business class.
andarax8 yes nice. question: can you get some of these channels with the comments disabled/excluded? They add little and annoy and distract a lot from the content of the vid. presentation. It is hard not to look at them, I admit; and I do troll as much as the next guy. kinda like a train wreck you keep looking at again and again. soooo, never mind!
@Rick Lokers but.... The hyperloop can be 'as well as' boats. Hyperloop station at the boat terminal, brings people from far away quickly, boats also mean that multiple launch pads can be managed easily and moved if needed.
Why not helicopters? They could land you right at the launch pad. Maybe even pick you at your house. That would cost money through. So would a hyperloop, the launch pad, the fuel. It isn't going to cheap, not for a long time and by the time it's common it'll just be annoying just like flying across the ocean is now.
It think you're getting it all wrong with the price. Time is money. If we only have to sit in this rocket for 30 minutes instead of 12 hours, it doesn't matter what the comfort is, you don't need to be served food or drinks. I'm pretty sure most business class customers who today fly these 12 hours routes would opt for the BFR even at the same price. And currently the prices of such business class tickets are closer to $5000 for both ways. At this price, the BFR could compete with traditional airlines, and it would completely eliminate long-distance business class.
Even though my bucket list only contains one item and it's "go to space", I'd take the 12 hour flight since the chance of dying is smaller by a magnitude of hundreds of thousands. I'd definitely risk the 1% chance of death to see space at least once in my life if given the opportunity, but not as a regular mode of transportation.
to be exact, chance of death on an airplane is about 1 in 60,000,000 whereas astronauts are somewhere between 1 in 31 or 1 in 50 if I remember correctly (over the course of their career)
The challenge here is not only just how long it take to get to your destination. Sure, it may take only 30 mins to fly from US to Australia. But you will also need to wait at least 2 hours every time between fly to proceed through custom, standing in line, checking luggage, waiting to get your luggage when you arrive, and all of the other procedure.
but don't people have to do normally on a regular airline as well? the difference here is the whole taking a boat to you rocket thing. Or this might be some sarcastic joke that went over my head and people are going to reply "r/whooosh" to me
Great video. In discussing the cost of flight, I'd like to point out that Mrs. Shotwell mentioned that unlike airlines that fly a plane to a long haul destination only once a day sometimes even two days; the BFR could fly multiple times a day. I think that's a game-changer too.
But the plane is able to turn around much faster (less than an hour if it needs to) unlike the bfr who would need to be reassembled. Picking the capsule and put it on top of the rocket. Plus what they don't tell you is that rockets are not able to fly in all weather conditions.
A mach 4.5 jet could do NY-London, London-NY, NY-London, London-NY in a day with the same crew. With a jet technology that is doable. Below mach 5 the stress and heat of materials are not so extreme.
I think the idea that a BFR flight would need to compete with airline economy prices is unrealistic. If business people, the rich and celebrities were willing to pay $10K for a one-way NY to Paris Concorde flight, they certainly would be willing to fork over at least that for a 39 minute BFR flight from North America to Asia. People who are able to trade money for time will always do so, and those who are price-constrained will opt for slower conventional air travel. So the profitability scenario may be a bit more attractive to SpaceX than that presented in this analysis. However, there are are still giant safety, environmental and regulatory hurdles to overcome before any such flights could be contemplated. Also, the technology of BFR is designed around payload to-orbit or interplanetary applications. Using BFR for sub-orbital hops is like using a Formula One racer to pop over to the local 7-Eleven. I suspect that if such flights ever become common, it will be using a something more like air-breathing rockets and airplane-like forms being investigated by NASA and others, rather than the BFR or other highly-reusable rocketry.
I like your video but I disagree with one important part, cost. In the beginning, BFR flights will be for those who can afford it. I would see those costs around $1,500 per ticket. I can even see the average person spending that amount of money to go to Japan, Korea, or China from LA. I think people are eager to experience a new kind of flight.
To be fair, even doubling the ticket price, people will pay... I could either travel (with changes ect) for a day (with proper jet lag) for a day to get to Australia from where I am... Or pay double and get there in well under an hour.... Am gonna pay double!
it will not be as safe as airplanes...definitly not anytime soon...but it will be MUCH faster. for those who want to travel ultra fast for a higher price, less comfort and more risk...it would be worth it. it wont replace air travel but it will complement it
@@jimmyfalcon1869 he said many things...but its ultra hard to make it that cost effective. just the fuel cost are extreme, not to mention making the BFR insanely reusable with those amounts of stress on it. it will be unlikely to reach those levels anytime soon for sure. reaching a comparable level of safety will be almost impossible too. so it would probably be more expensive (ideally not by much), less safe, less comfortable. but u will get ultra fast travel with a nice view too.
It doesn't need the same safety standerds as planes have now. If it's as safe as planes were in the 60s, people will do it. Especially considering the speed.
Your point of view is good, however, I think current or tougher safety standards will be applied. Let's hope for this project come true and experience such a flight adventure.
but current Astronaut death rate is 1 out of 31, and airline death rate is 1 out of 60,000,000 ... even getting to 1960's airline safety levels is a 6 orders of magnitude improvement (about 300,000 times better, LOL). The cost will kill this idea before safety concerns ever get tested for real .. Musk is absurdly optimistic, but then that is his job, marketing spin that generates investor cash. Many predict that BFR will morph into a highly profitable unmanned space cargo launch carrier .. there just isn't any near term practical use for carrying hundreds of people into space at once.
The other issue is the inherent violence in ballistic rocketry. The vast majority of people aren't going to want to be knocked unconscious by 4 to 5 Gs of force on liftoff, vomit in free fall (the Vomit Comet got its name for a good reason) and then experience a fiery, hypersonic plunge into the atmosphere, followed by a rapid, last minute deceleration just before barely slowing to a stop. It would be the equivalent of bad turbulence on absolutely every flight.
Jonathan Dirks no, in the 60s people didn't know any better. People are very aware about safety standards. Your argument seems flawed. People won't risk their lives if risks are significantly higher just because it's more convenient.
BFR will not replace traditional airliner in anyway because the problem of comfortability. However they will find market in military use. Imagine the ability to deploy troops and supply anywhere on earth (including behind enemy lines) within the matter of hours. That military strategist wet dream.
about a 100 years ago, people using ships like the titanic would say the same about airplanes and now let's see if they would say the same- Give it time. There's always something that will replace a technology. Take the internet for example, it has replaced television and it will continue to do so that we no longer need a tv set to watch news but just a laptop or holografic proyector to watch whatever. Sure there are still plenty of networks broadcasting shows on tv channels but once Netflix came out, so did many other services like hulu, HBO, etc... about 10 years ago we used dvd or BR to watcha movie, today is trending to disappear due to high speed internet where you can stream away any movie or you buy music mostly from itunes or websites selling music as data than a physical store selling cd's. Mobile phones have replaced regular land line phones that used a chord or their wireless versions, and has absorbed to a point the fact that you no longer need an average film camera to take photos any longer unless you wanna go retro.
Would be even more catastrophic for the planet than regular planes. I am fascinated by space exploration amd I think spaceX did some great things, but I sure as hell hope that this will never become mainstream.
Why can't tickets just be more expensive? I'd pay double to get somewhere in a fraction of the time. So would most wealthy people, who value time a lot.
David Scheurer The reason SpaceX are even considering this is to get a revenue stream to finance the development of the BFR and trips to mars. For that it needs to be more than a niche service for the rich.
@@andrewpaulhart Hollywood's twits and other celebs alone could provide financing for Mars; their whole lives are about being the "first with the most"!
@@andrewpaulhart Daddy NASA, and by extension the American people, are the ones financing most of SpaceX. E2E BFR is a publicity stunt to reel in scientifically illiterate investors and raise brand value for Elon's various companies.
Earth to Earth wouldn’t need the booster. The BFS alone has enough delta-v to get into orbit with a small payload, so it would make no sense to use to booster for suborbital flight
Maybe for the "heavy cargo versions" of BFR E2E [not something lame like written mail, but massive stuff that needs to be transported ASAP for whatever reason]; the use of a BFB for the ENTIRE ascent phase plus the initial "slowdown" (separating in the descent phase while still out of the atmosphere), with the BFS using a minimum of fuel for the landing (while BFB also lands nearby the same destination).
You only need about 1.2 to 1.4 G of acceleration to reach orbit (it depends on aerodynamics, so BFR probably can go on the lower side). -> The main reason most rockets go higher than 3 G is to save fuel (less time "fighting gravity" and more incresing speed); but this is not necesary if you have excess fuel [full tanks with not even half of the max payload mass].
Also... Almost forgot that BFR E2E never goes "into orbit" (all launches to all destinations are suborbital); so the max speed is MUCH lower; so the time spent accelerating to reach it (at low G) is not even 1/3 of the whole journey.
I'm surprised, as a lover of science and technology, by the people who promote tech while adding a great dollop of magical thinking, it seems contradictory.
I think people would pay more than first class for a ticket when you factor in how much faster it gets people to their destination as well as the initial cool factor. I probably wouldn't be one of those passengers until all of the bugs are worked out, my biggest apprehension is safety
I think Elon and Gwynne know that Earth to Earth is a long shot and I very much doubt they are motivated by it. I think them and most space nerds (myself included) are far more excited about BFR to Mars. Earth to Earth is a way to get space outsiders interested or at least talking, and I'm all for that.
A VTOL TSTO like BFR is not likely to be used for suborbital point to point other than maybe a few publicity stunts. One big issue is restacking the spaceship on the booster which would at a least be as involved as mating the Shuttle to 747 carrier aircraft. A HOTOL SSTO like Skylon would be much better suited for suborbital point to point transport.
It's being designed purely for Mars and other higher-up spaceflights. Even if this use of it is plausible, it wouldn't seem like the most sensible vehicle for the purpose, if this could actually be economical they'd design a different craft from the ground up optimized for this mission - though maybe they'd use their existing BFR/Starship as a proof of concept to lead to the development of this new vehicle. As for Patchuchan's remarks of the restacking and mating and all, I'd think even a regular Starship (BFR upper stage) could do this all single-stage, no need for the lower stage booster, as the lower stage booster arrangement is for escape velocity, a suborbital hop would need far less delta-V, and that would save a lot of costs and hassles. But a vehicle designed for this purpose specifically rather than a far more capable (and thus more expensive) interplanetary ship could do it all even better. I'd think more of a spaceplane design, something with wings that looks more like the Space Shuttle and can glide down rather than a pure rocket descent. Maybe capable of taking off and landing horizontally, allowing for use of existing airports, or even capable of either horizontal takeoff/landing or VTOL depending on if the facility in question has a launch pad or runway.
At the time, mankind didn't know about the physical effects of a wing, no one could imagine that we would use planes to go on holiday. But..we fly rockets to space since more then 70 years now. We know about the effects, we know the dangers, we know about how ridiculously much energy it needs to reach that height. Sure, people need dreams, and they will keep defending them.
It's not just a dream. Major parts of the rocket are already developed. The info showcased in the video is from SpaceX. Even if the average person can't afford to go at first, it will get cheaper, and better systems will be developed, until spaceflight is similar to a train ticket.
I think Blue Origen & Virgin Galactic have the right idea for a commercial rocket business plan with space tourism. That is the one thing you can only get with a rocket that nothing else can do. In 30 minute flights everyone is going to want to unbuckle and experience 0-G but there won't be time. (No more than the vomit comet) #dearmoon is a great example of this. Just like the original Tesla Roadster, you start with a luxury service that is low volume / high prophet. Much later you can do the 'Model 3' type consumer level things.
@@johnleicester3812 I don't think they need too. They already have deals selling there engines (BE4) to ULA and are currently building the new Sheppard. I think they're on track and merging would just slow them down.
You don't factor the number of travel of BFR can make in 14hrs vs. the traditional of 1 flight per 14 hrs. BFR can go for 30min. vs 14hrs of flight. They don't need to lower or increase their price, they can maybe lower it even more to disrupt the airline industry. Let say hypothetically: for airbus international travel of 14hrs per flight, BFR can do roughly 25(conservative) flight vs the 1 flight of the traditional airplane. Also the fuel of BFR is methane based so it's a lot cheaper than traditional Rocket grade fuel. Did you watch the TED talk of Gwynne Shotwell talking about BFR Earth-to-Earth Travel? Here's the link:th-cam.com/video/Dar8P3r7GYA/w-d-xo.html
It takes more than 30 minutes for turnaround of a commercial airliner. Logistics are even harder for a rocket where cargo and passengers are high up, the fueling needs to be faster, etc. You're assuming the main cost of an airline is the capital expenditure on airplane purchases, but usually it's fuel, maintenance, labor, just about everything but the airplane purchases. Fuel, maintenance, and to some extent labor all scale with number of flights rather than number of aircraft
First of all it would be closer to 90 mins per flight as you wouldn't want to reach orbital velocity. And secondly those launches would need to happen around 100 km offshore away from anyone as they tend to be quite a bit louder than airplanes when landing or taking off so in reality you would still be looking around 2 hours of traveling before and after your initial flight in order to to and from the cities you were actually traveling.
One rocket can't make more than one flight every 14 hrs. The reused sections need to be refurbished and the parts that aren't reused will need to be replaced
@@seandonahue4469 why would you assume they would only have 1? they could have many and as they refurbish 1(also, the video said the new rocket would not need to be refurbished) their using the others.
Huge factor overlooked is not only making a long international flight go from 14-17 hours to less than an hour, but you going into space too. Weigh less for over 15 minutes and awesome view of Earth. Many would pay over $10,000 just for that. Imagine the vacation package. LA to Australia in 30 minutes, see Earth from 150 miles up, weighless for $10k. Likely would be booked solid for months on end.
@@greynolds17 The amount of fuel that is burned is mind blowing. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but is Ion propulsion more efficient, or is it used in most launches? In my head, Xenon is more efficient, or is it just another emission which is not efficient?
Interesting yet I really doubt it. 1). It can be mistaken as a missile attack 2). It will just make more and more space junks 3). Regular civilians can die from heart or panic attack. 4). Good travel means safety, slow, enjoyable, comfortable. If only we can teleport then I will say yeay! To the future of travel.
>1). It can be mistaken as a missile attack Not quite. The launch is announced beforehand, along with all the trajectory details. Also, Starship is far, far bigger, than any re-entry vehicle of ICBM. >2). It will just make more and more space junks No. The entire point of Starship/Super Heavy is its full reusability. Both stages are recovered and reused. There are no pyrotechnic bolts, so, staging does not produce the junk either. >3). Regular civilians can die from heart or panic attack. I assume there'll be some kind of a health check, before one boards. >4). Good travel means safety, slow, enjoyable, comfortable. Not for everyone. Some just want to get to their destination faster. And for those, Starship Earth-to-Earth will be a godsend.
Hypersonic planes such as the A2 seem like better solutions for high speed long haul travel, logistically speaking. It's a single stage vehicle which is capable of using existing airport infrastructure and therefore doesn't require staging of boosters, given that it's a purely atmospheric vehicle. It also won't require the same G-forces for reaching orbital velocity, unlike it's orbital counterpart the Skylon, so it's flying experience wouldn't be entirely far removed from conventional airplane travel. With that being said, it still has to contend with its sonic boom, limiting its use to flights over oceans. Boeing also has a turboramjet hypersonic airliner and German Aerospace Centre has it's two-stage rocket powered Spaceliner that could potentially compete with A2 and BFR. I would say the Spaceliner is a more potent candidate for competing against the BFR since it uses existing rocket technology, while the A2 and Boeing's vehicle utilize jet technology that could take years to materialize.
@@gazey that is called feeling the blood being pushed more to one side of your body because of g forces and a slight adrenaline kick. not everyones body reacts too well to it. but just a slight shake is a normal response from your fight or flight respose when hit with adrenaline.
I think the BFR's biggest customers initially will be businesses. The time reduction will revolutionize international delivery, and I bet companies will probably be willing to absorb slightly higher costs if they save 6-7 hours per shipment.
I see the technology to be most likely to be bought into by the military (which has already looked into a similar project with SUSTAIN (look it up on Wiki. It's awesome and you'll ask why we never went through with it)). I can definitely see how the military would want to send 500 Marines + weapons and ammunition (Obviously vehicles would probably have to be sent over beforehand) across the world in under an hour. Plus, the Military would be the prime market for the startup phase: A strong core of young, healthy, and physically fit passengers that can take the G-Forces? (most astronauts are recruited from the military anyway.) Check. An organization that is willing to take riskier options for transport and people that are willing to take that risk for an obvious and extremely powerful advantage in capability? Check. Nigh-Unlimited pockets that will be willing to fund expensive projects and take cost overruns for a promising project? check. People with facilities that can be launched out of and landed at where no one cares about noise pollution? Check. An organization with a history of revolutionizing the consumer market with its funding of technologies to better their own operations? Check. The military would be the perfect customer to start this sort of thing off.
I agree. If they made it safe and comfortable they can charge like 5k easy.. a lot of people fly business and first class.. when I went on business trip to india..22hr flight inlcuding lay over in london, it cost my company 12k for round trip in business class. If I could fly on the bfr for 5k and get there in under an hour I would.. plus imagine the view! People might be hesistant at first but after a year if there were no problems.. i think it would be the preferred choice for business and first class passengers.
Short answer, No. Much longer answer, you'd have to take into account logistics, location, weather conditions, launch capability, and availability. Airplanes can land fairly close to major cities (some complain about the noise though), rockets, as stated in the video, would be limited to landing near coastal areas (and there would still be major complaints about the noise, rockets are much louder than jets). Airliners can both take off and land under weather conditions that would cause a rocket launch to be scrubbed.And it wouldn't just be the rockets, the entire launching and recovery infrastructure would have to be built (gantry towers, launch pads, refueling areas, passenger and/or cargo processing areas, and accessways from metropolitan areas to the launch site) at each location where you intend to have service. The best of all possible alternatives would be a system similar to Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, a series of suborbital rocket planes that can take off (with the assist of special carrier planes that would also be housed in special hangers at the airport) and land at most major metropolitan airports, with very little modification since most of the needed infrastructure is located there already.
In my opinion, maybe? If you factor in that you can land kilometers away from land and take a loop or hyper loop back to shore it becomes more logical. It could become more quiet then conventional airplanes. Also if they started by tying the launch access points to existing loop/Hyperloop infastructure that's alot of the work done. Building things like towers and launchpads are nothing campared to the main rocket so I'm not too worried about that.
@@Daniel-pl1vh weather is already a small issue, its been confirmed to launch in 60km/h ground speed winds and 300 km/h high altitude winds. www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/8wv1ut/elon_on_twitter_bfr_will_be_able_to_launch_in/?
@@max_amann Cool, there's that then I guess. I think then it just comes down to the noise of a literal rocket inside a city and the safety issues with that mainly.
@@Daniel-pl1vh I figure that they could have thier landing pads out of the city then use a loop/Hyperloop to get there quickly (much faster than boat).
@@noobtube7344 Dude. tf ? Do you even listen to yourself ? So first of all, "Dropping flight times under an hour". No. If you know anything about Sub Orbital Flight Path you will know that the G Forces during flight are extrem and often times get over 10 Gs. ICBMs can travel this fast because they dont have to slow down and high G Forces dont hurt them. So yes, the BFR could do that in 30min, but everybody would be dead. How do you know that ? SpaceX said that they would drop the Prices to 1/10 of normal launch costs by 2010 or so. And this didnt happen. How do you know that ? As far as i know, SpaceX is doing about as good as other Rocket Companys in terms of Safety. So about 89%. Which is suicidel for comercial launches. No it cannot. This kind of Sub Orbital flight is to dangeros, other kinds with space planes are not. But transporting people with Rockets is not a very good idea. It never was. But it works because we did a lot of work but even after all of this work, we just barrly hi the 90% mark. Meanwhile a plane has something like 99.9999999999999% and even if something happens, you will most likely survive.
@@erikhall1146 A. Do YOU hear yourself. The official given numbers (by SpaceX) compare the Gs to an amusement park ride. Second, airlines were also unsafe as a new technology, had they listened to people like you, those levels of safety would not exist. The actual problem is fuel consumption, and that is what could make rockets impractical. Edit: Musk is an optimist. He sets ambitious timelines, just because something is behind schedule doesn't devalue what they have accomplished
@@noobtube7344 Rockets are ridiculously inefficient compared with jet aircraft. Its a fundamental fact of physics. A huge constrain of the civil aviation industry is the cost of fuel; energy used to move the plane through the air. Rockets use far, far more fuel to fly the same distance as airplanes do. Rockets will always be hugely wasteful and expensive to fly. Pollution is a problem too, rockets just burn fuel and dump the exhaust straight into the air, and because they use up so much fuel, the pollution could be shocking. You could potentially use hydrogen or methane, but these are still expensive for the amount of fuel you would need. Also because rockets need so much energy to fly, they need to store a lot of energy on board in the form of flammable, volatile fuel. As we saw firsthand on 9/11, a fully fueled jumbo jet is able to release a dangerous amount of energy if all that fuel is simply set on fire. Rockets use orders of magnitude more fuel than airplanes. Large rockets could do (small) atom bomb type damage if they exploded.
@@snarkylive Your Argument is invalid. Think about how big an airplane is, and only part of that space is filled with fuel. Rockets are larger than airplanes, and almost entirely filled with fuel and oxidizer. Just by looking at the relative amounts of fuel used to go a similar distance, you can debunk your argument for yourself. The key problem with your thinking is that, in order to fly a ballistic trajectory from on point on earth to another, the rocket has to accelerate to a much higher speed than an airplane ever reaches. Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass * velocity^2, so our energy needs increase with the square of the velocity, meaning that the much higher speed that the rocket needs to go is a big problem for your argument that rockets are more efficient. Go back to physics class.
I put some thought into it and actually suspect the fuel consumption might end up being on par with jet airliners. This would need to carry huge amounts of propellant, but most of that is liquid oxygen. Fuel would be liquid methane, which is relatively cheap, far cheaper per energy-content than kerosene that airliners burn (also less carbon emissions per energy as well). Airliners, it must be remembered burn a hell of a lot of fuel too, at takeoff a long-haul airliner is often carrying it's own weight in fuel. For a flight like this I suspect it wouldn't need two stages as shown in these videos, that's for flights to the Moon or Mars, for a sub-orbital hop I would think Starship (the upper stage) on it's own would be sufficient, greatly reducing cost and fuel requirements. As this video shows, it would be more expensive (at least as currently envisioned) than airliners on a per-seat basis, but not by as much as we'd expect. And it carries a hell of a lot of people, not just a few like a business jet or even Concorde would.
Tesla Motor is actually the Anti Tesla. Nikola Tesla is wireless free energy. Tesla Motors is just a GigaFactory Trojan to monopolize Lithium-X voltaics. Electric cars existed even in Nikola Tesla's time except he decided to work on a viable power source instead of gimmicky novelties.
@@worton1968 I look at the math and see roughly what they would experience. Technically you would be following a ballistic trajectory then again you aren't. There's rocket assistance. Yes some forces but not 7 gs worth
@@worton1968 He steven, I looked into this. Please dont take this as me being trying to be some snotty jerk. The initial takeoff would semi uncomfortable to the weak, frail or sick. However for the healthy person its very much a fun rollercoaster type ride. The G forces Would be in that range. As long as it wasnt treated as a ballistic missile the over all G forces could be minimized. The idea is to get out of the atmosphere quickly leaving behind all the friction. Hit your speed and then re-enter taking a much easier re-entry trajectory than an orbital velocity space craft would. This is very do-able and with some engineering could be very cool for the wealthy at first then opening the way for the common peasants like me and you.
stupid question, no. unless we achieve super efficient engines and power generation, i world prefer to pay less and wait 12 hours to fly on a plane which also has a much lower risk of blowing up or crashing.
A man in the 1900s: Stupid quesiton, no. Unless we achieve super efficient engine and power generation, I would prefer to pay less and wait 12 days to ride on a train, which also has a much lower risk of blowing up or crashing.
@@SavageDragon999 You can't compare a fuck7ng rocket to what happened 100 years ago. Also being sceptic is the most important aspect of technology. Uf we would just acceot everything rich assholes would throw at us, the world would be bankrupt. Also we are very very far in terms of rocket propulsion, and we know how dangerous it is, unlike 100 years ago when they knew very little about the train, which was just invented. A train won't explode like a rocket because unlike a train, a rocket is about 95% highly explosive and dangerous fuel. You are sitting on a bomb up there, and when anything goes wrong, EVERYONE on the rocket will die. You can't make many safety features for rocketflight, unlike for planes and cars etc. Your comment showed us that you are a naive moron. You are the kind of person who thinks that technological innovation has no limits at all and that human intelect will always win over nature.
@@phyrinx3740 "You can't compare a fuck7ng rocket to what happened 100 years ago." You're right, you can't. But he wasn't comparing them. However, what he was comparing is people's nay-say to newer innovations when such things are drastically different than what they're use to. "Also being skeptic is the most important aspect of technology." Not necessarily. You can be an unreasonable skeptic, or you could be a reasonable skeptic. If you have decent reasoning's for being skeptical than you're perfectly right. You can give constructive criticism for why you think it may not hold, and it can be beneficial. If you're the type of skeptic that doubts absolutely everything for no good reason, and just spouting out nonsense, than you will not benefit anyone or anything, so that type of skeptic aren't important to technology. "You are sitting on a bomb up there, and when anything goes wrong, EVERYONE on the rocket will die." So are planes.... Not as explosive, but they're still that. It's just that innovation and repetition has made them very cheap, affordable, and very safe. Rockets over time become safer and safer, and more affordable. It certainly isn't at that ideal point yet, but it's starting to appear with the newer Falcon family. Also, this is false that everyone will die... It entirely depends upon the rocket. The space shuttle everyone has an extremely high chance of dying if it exploded. But the Falcon 9 will have a far more practical escape method if things went wrong. Depending upon how the rocket explodes and where they're, the computer will trigger the escape system and everyone could survive. " Your comment showed us that you are a naive moron." They just making a comment of people whom has said the same thing in the past, and has been proven wrong, make him a naive moron? Then this comment must make you a prick. The original question was stated under the presumption that rockets will not have great improvements in the future, then yes, it's a stupid question. However, We see their being new innovations which is changing the industry on its cost. Safety comes from repetition, and SpaceX seems to be doing a pretty good job at that. The fact that rockets are showing an improvement, makes it clear that the question itself: "Could SpaceX BFR replace traditional airliner" far from a stupid question. It's plausible if it keeps up over many decades, and keeps on improving. It COULD very well replace them. "You are the kind of person who thinks that technological innovation has no limits at all and that human intelect will always win over nature." It amazes me how you concluded that from his comment. He seemed like the type that thought people that say this is a stupid question, has been proven wrong in the past, so it isn't an entirely stupid question when we see these innovations being made in the last few years. He never made a comment about that technology has no limits, and that human intellect will always win over nature. Next time, Try to not make a straw-man from his main point.
Búi Helgason LOL, that doesn't sound much better either. I guess they will come up with some consumer friendly term for it. One that doesn't sound so violent....
It actually isn't using the suicide burn/hoverslam method like the falcon 9. It has a way higher fuel margin for landing allowing for a slow deceleration and landing.
@@sohanturtorial3856 I think it technically doesn't fall under the definition of suicide burn because the suicide burn requires the burn to be started at the most efficient time in order to save the most fuel where the BFR wastes some fuel in an attempt to reduce G force. Although with a word like suicide burn the definition isn't really set in stone so we could both be right.
In all seriousness, I think before this is used by civilians, the government will most likely militarise it. Moving 850 troops halfway around the world in 30 mins gives any nation a significant strategic advantage, the only problem would be the cost and the availability of a large quantity of rockets, plus spaces to land them, in times of war. Moving 100K men would take like 120 rockets (Ish). Finding a spot to land 120 rockets near a conflict zone won't be easy. I can def see it happening tho
Take off and landing of a rocket will never as safe as a plane but it will be safe enough. However the actual flight phase in space will be the safest form of travel as there is zero stress on the vehicle.
Right now, you have a 1% chance of losing a rocket on a single flight. Your chance of losing a commercial plane on a single flight is is ~0.00001%. That is including the fact that modern rockets are only launched once. If planes were only flown once, they would never fail. Rockets have a LOOOOONNNNNGGGG way to go. I need something safer than 1% to risk my life...
MrMhmToasty Check your statistics on driving a car, rockets don’t need to be safer then planes, they only need to be safer then driving a car. Then the majority of people should fly in them with no more fear then they have driving their own car to the rocket pad...
@@livefire666 Then why do ~1 in 31 astronauts die on the job? Because rocket travel is still inherently unsafe. Musk still has a lot to do to make rockets much, much, much safer.
Actually let me clarify. The very smart people working for Musk have a lot to do. I've met one of the original propulsion engineers at SpaceX (Caltech Alum, I'm an undergrad there rn) and he said that Musk oftentimes doesn't understand the technical challenges and details.
Nobody seems to be talking about eh huge amounts of fuel the BFR needs compared to an airliner. And how pollution and simply getting fuel will be a problem if rocket travel is to be made mainstream
Elon did speak about it. Using the same tech to refuel on Mars. Creating methane from water and air, means the gases the rocket expels into the atmosphere during launch, are removed from the atmosphere during extraction. Zero net pollution.
+Donald Garrett Musk does not understand thermodynamics, Gibbs free energy, chemical kinetics. If he did, he would not make dumbass assumptions that some desired technology is possible. He would crunch all the numbers FIRST.
What nobody seems to be talking about is the massive number of reasons why this is a stupid idea, like noise, cost, chance of death compared to airplane, how to get to and from remote launch pad quickly, etc.
I don't doubt that it will be possible, but I highly doubt the schedule Musk has set. Yes, we come a long way in aircraft technology, but is has been over 100 years
The thing to keep in mid about the pace of technology development, though, is that our tools and building blocks are all much better now -- from computers, rapid prototyping, robotic manufacturing, advanced materials, etc.
Lol I doubt it. Airbus fully understands the aviation logistics business and isn't gonna fall for snake oil intended to fool scientifically illiterate potential investors. The industry demands CHEAPER, not FASTER. That is why Concorde failed, and it didn't even have the host of problems that one would face with going suborbital.
Oh great, now DHL will have my packages go missing in space.
This also bring in a point! What if collisions happens? Also whats the point of having ur packages shipped in a few hours (Includes truck delivery timing) VS days or a day cheapers and also who would pay about 50 dollars for that...
Dude epic profile pic
😂😂😂
Hey steve, where is that package?
Steve: so thats what the big red button does!
@@kundigan5748 I was thinking the same about speed. The 747 was designed to double over as a cargo plane during a time when the future of passenger travel seemed to be supersonic - the reasoning being that if the 747 failed in the long term as a passenger plane, development costs could still be recuperated since cargo doesn't get uncomfortable on long flights.
Travel time: 30 minutes
Boarding: 4 hours
Indeed
so true!
But catch the fact that if u add that together it’s still faster than a normal plane ride
still quicker than flying
Bag of in-flight peanuts: $4,000
7:14 then the government realized they can throw bombs out of airplanes, not deliver mail.
That’s the literal reason why airplane is so advance lol
@@potatobutroasted4308 🤣🤣🤣 dead ass
You have that backwards. Subtract war, and we wouldn't have any of this technology. We wouldn't have flight at all. We wouldn't have electricity or engineering/science as you know it.
_make pease_
@@st0n3p0ny Or even this platform to comment. Remember who invented the internet...
I’m an airline pilot, but I would love to see these rockets used for logistics and passenger use. I really dislike having to spend 17 hours in a middle seat in economy to go to the other side of the world. I’d gladly pay $1,500 to go from New York to Tokyo in 30 minutes.
Man, i imagine some rich dude is going to be the first human ever to travel to all continents in one day, excluding Antarctis unless they build a landing zone there LoL
You and I both. If it's only $1,500, it is a no-brainer. Even at $8,000 it's a good value.
@@SomalianDukeThis world record could last hundreds or even thousands of years until we find a way to teleport without dying.
DarkVortex42 yeah, that would be crazy
I want to be an airline pilot, I am currently a student pilot, I want to be able to fly. This will take away so many jobs. Should I be scared.
I would 100% fly on the BFR if it was $1,250 per trip. I wouldn't do it all the time but would for sure do it once to be able to go to Space
Try adding two more zeros on that price buddy.
Nah, not with the expected cost of the trip and the amount of people the rocket can support per trip. If all goes as planned the only thing the rocket will need is the fuel, and it's fuel will be superchilled Methane.
Many people will pay 12500 (x10 your ticket) just to SEE the curvature of the Earth and feel the lack of gravity for a few minutes [the actual travel to "the other side of the planet" for vacations is just a bonus].
@ Ben Staker : For long SPACE travel is designed to house 100 people [then for a quick suborbital flights anywhere between 500 to 1000 is not even "optimistic"]. Logistics to bring them "inside of it" & secure them on their seats is the main limit.
-> The methane and oxigen can be "made" literally "from the air and seawater" using electricity [via solar panels, wind and batteries]; so it is CARBON NEUTRAL.
I think I’m just gonna stay healthy and go to college for a long time
When this happens, Tom Hanks needs to do a remake of Cast Away, except this time stuck on an Asteroid, flying back to Earth with a rock named Wilson
It's called The Martian, and he talks to the videojournal camera instead of a rock.
Tru
@@rakaydosdraj8405 ad astra or gravity 😊
I could be the 200th like but nahhhh
@@goodcat1982 you never watch the invasion of robot chicken 😊
4:15 read the whole ticket
Did you scan the QR Code? lol
@@BrianYYH i did
big f***ing plane | and passenger is elon musk lol
@@milok.2604 it contains a gif of elon musk
media.giphy.com/media/Ip5D1pwQ4pKs8/giphy.gif
Tracking a parcel be like:
*Your parcel is en route and is in the quantum realm*
@Mo Ben -
Your parcel has arrived , getting wakened by wired humming sound & noticing that all your electronics are fried
Probably wouldn’t need updates
"Your parcel has shipped - " KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK
Orders a package
30 mins later
KNOCK KNOCK
Parcel has been incinerated after a kraken
So instead of a Boeing 747 or something.......
I will ride on a....
Big fookin rocket
Abhinav Chauhan THATS how the ticket says anyway
“Big fookin rocket”
Starship
Yeaa aaa baby
JIMI JAMES what does it matter if it’s Russian powered. We’re all on the same earth and should collaborate.
If I was in the market for building and naming rockets, that's what I would label outside of the rocket for hilarious aesthetic look!
Dubai is going to have the first inner city landing zone.
How do u know?
I can’t wait to see reply’s lol
If Im not wrong space x made a promotional video that's show Dubai will be the first one to build a landing zone.
Because it’s dubai and they want to be first
@@bxshk894 Because it is Dubai.
Breaking News: Pilot fell asleep, ended up on Mars.
Nathecat hehe, he must have slept for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time lol. like, 6 months+
its not gonna be controlled by humans idiot
@@operatorjewski9450 it's a joke, and a good one. Lighten up little fella.
The people on board be like:hey I least I got to go to Mars for the price of going to California from California but how are we going to get home now
Starship is self-driving.
Due to G-forces involved: a health clearance will be required.
You don't need health clearance for rollercoasters do you? 2 or 3 gs ain't shit.
@Best4rtNiteClips Actually, due to advances in rocket tech, today, astronauts usually experience no more than 3-something gs during the launch.
@Portal To The Weekend _ The travel time is too short for that but I understand what you're saying.
The g forces would only be a problem if you were pregnant or injured.
Best4rtNiteClips ya it's usually around 4 g
The BFR is only made as an alternative to commercial planes, it's not meant to compete with them. People will still pay the extra money to get from A to B 25 times faster no matter the price.
Some will, but remember Concorde. At first, it was luxurious (for the time) and fast, but also crazy expensive (and even then, few people bought tickets). During the later years, Concorde was less luxurious than a ticket that cost way less (a subsonic flight) and just as expensive. The lack of ticket sales was one of the factors that led to Concorde's retirement.
The problem is you might not make it from A to B on a rocket.
@@jeffk464 Same can be said by any airplane today. It's only a matter of mastering the technology and making it reliable.
how did other planes become more "luxurious": @@owenjohnson5308
@@robertheal5137 I'm talking specifically about the later years during Concorde's decline. In the late '80s or early '90s, British Airways introduced 'cradle seats', which allowed flyers to sleep easier on long haul flights. Then in 1995, BA introduced fully lie-flat seats in first class. Other aspects of "luxury" would probably have remained the same, such as food and drink.
Although it's not nearly as exciting as moving people, super Express package delivery would seem to be the first place to start with Earth to Earth travel on the BFR.
(Just like it did with the new/risky air travel)
Too small a market for the price and the flexibility. Between most places you can get a packge delivered within one day already. And in the beginning, you will only have very few hubs. So on many connections you will probably not be faster. Also, you will only be able to have such a flight once a day per destination anyway. So I don't expect this any time soon.
imagine ordering a product from china and it arrives within an hour
freight is way cheaper to move than people. air freight moving to "space" freight? ain't nobody gonna pay for that.
people on the other hand, would pay $1500 compared to $800 to be there in a fraction of time.
Jonathan Uchiha we talking about big ass freighters only
Perhaps this would be better suited for military deliveries then?
18 has died, and 14 of them are from the space shuttle program
= =
1 was from Soyuz 1
3 was from Soyuz 11
@@joenuts4099 I knew it
@@square7563 they didn't go to space
@@square7563 yeah
@@square7563 They were killed on ground
“It’s important to remember, that the same thing is once said to airliners”
Airliners and cars were developed in a time where people weren't scared of their own shadows.
People also said the same thing about teleportation. I’m still waiting.
I guess my mom is also...
not important
@@bilbo_gamers6417 they were scared of women being in the government, they were terrified of homosexuals etc.
Bilbo_Gamers Hey, what’s that? *AAAAAAAAH MY SHADOW!*
*_I can imagine Ryanair Starship..._*
It would backflip yeet into the Atlantic XD
"The landing burn would burn fuel, and that costs money. Brace yourselves everyone!"
5 seconds after lanuching off: *blows*
It would have a collision course with the big boi rock in space
@@quillmaurer6563 "We are about to land on the Launchpad with 300 m/s"
We'll need a new term for "jet lag". Big F'n lag?
Comment of the day :D
Rocket lag, yeet
There's no jet lag or rocket lag when it only takes 30mins to 1 hour to travel anywhere in the world
@@ThabangLekoane Actually, that makes it worse. What causes jet lag is the time zone changes, so making the journey quicker would give you even less time to adapt.
well, that remains to be seen.. the time difference might be bigger, but because of the shorter travel time (and likely more cabin space than a cramped plane) you are possibly less exhausted after the travel, which maybe makes adaption to the time change easier..
BFR = Big Friendly Rocket
thought it's Big Fat Rocket
Big F**king Rocket, its Elon Musk this is exactly what he was thinking.
@@joshuadillard2350 LOL! That's what I THOUGHT BFR meant (in fact, look carefully at the image at 4:16 onward LOL :-)
@@joshuadillard2350 Yeah it's big fucking rocket.
@@Joel-hw5sl yeah I red his biography
And those wondering the QR code at 4:17, it’s a picture of Elon mask
BIG FUCKING ROCKET MY DUDE
If anyone was wondering here's the link the QR code has
media.giphy.com/media/Ip5D1pwQ4pKs8/giphy.gif
I don't see it.
Keep in mind that in order to fly the Concorde from New York to London in 3 hours, one must have paid about $15,000.
it costest about 10,000
fladave99 Mills it’s not going into space space it’s just going way farther into the atmosphere, you won’t even feel weightlessness. So it will be much cheaper than regular space shuttles and it will be reusable too further reducing the price. And about all that other stuff idk where you got that info but it’s all false Elon isn’t getting anything from taxpayers and the gas car companies don’t give him any share of what they sell.
@fladave99 Mills A Typical Trump Supporter.
fladave99 Mills Sore loser.
fladave99 Mills did you read the article? If you did you would know tesla is not making anyone do anything. It's because the other automakers are not following government mandates for their vehicles efficiency so they have to purchase teslas surplus. ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT PAYING THE $ ITS THE AUTO COMPANIES! If they took that money and invested it into making more efficient vehicles they wouldn't need to pay it to tesla. Also the one time tesla did get bailout money from the gov tesla actually paid it back with interest unlike the other car companies that did not pay back and some required more money. Funny how you fail to mention the subsidies given to big oil. They are some of the most profitable companies but they still take gov subsidies at least tesla is moving the auto industry into the right direction.
You forgot about the thrill and experience of literally flying trough space. People are going to pay for that. There will also be a small portion of the population that prefers time savings over ticket price. And yes, even tough the BFR E2E will only cover a small niche of air travel, I think it will be a huge succes.
Tudor Jinga yeah, flying a rocket and visiting at the same time Australia. This would be an awesome vacation.
I’m more excited for this than the flights to Mars. Like you said, going into space. Who born today would think that was even a remote possibility.
I dont get excited riding the plane
Idealistic simpletons lol. You have 0 understanding of what it takes to actually launch a rocket. This will never be a thing and interplanetary travel among the common citizen most certainly will not happen within your life times. Sorry to rain in on your parade.
I wanna see the curvature of the earth. You don't get to see that from a plane.
Faster flight vs. the more comfortable flight.
What if we could have a comfortable bed, and free WiFi, and food on the long and cheap flight instead ?
Thats what we have now, for people flying first class. Before we had the concorde that was faster, but uncomfortable. Now we have slower but comfortable.
What if everyone could afford what you're talking about?
I remember comfortable a meal and less time waiting. Now we are uncomfortable with peanuts and paying for WiFi.
But what if i want to go to space by this rocket?
That’s what people used to think for trains when planes were introduced
You are thinking like old people
Idiot: why don't we just fly planes to space
Elon: hold my beer
Elon mentioned in the #dearmoon mission that G forces could be lowered in exchange for more fuel/ less payload.
With 100,000 KG to LEO capacity, this seems like a non-problem.
It is a non issue. Teslas electric cars acceleration is around 2 Gs for proformance models.
All the same some people genuinely dont like roller coasters, just like some people dont like Tomatoes.
the shaking during reentry would be more an issue than the G's at launch.
no fuck that. feeling the G-force is half the experience
@@andrew1717xx 2g in a streetcar? Where did you get that from?
Ok so lets say the BFR follows a ICBM Ballistic Trajectory for its flight. It would pull about 100Gs on Acceleration during Liftoff and about 25 to 50 during Reentry. Thats because the Missile dosnt need to land. So if the BFS would follow the same Trajectory it would have the same G Forces, at least during Reentry. Lets be gentel and say that the BFS would use a slower Trajectory and experince about 10 Gs During Reentry. That would kill people but fuck it. Lets say the Ship slows down in Orbit from 6km/s to 4. That would cut the G Froces but also shorten the travel distance even more.
The fact ist that a Ballistic Trajectory is a very different thing then a Orbit. If you are in Orbit, you can Reenter very flat so the G Forces dont kill everybody. Thats how the Space Shuttle did it. A Ballistic Trajectory is very Short and fast. And the reenter angle is very steep. Like so Steep that you get those G Forces of up to 50 Gs.
It’s a good option for the normal average citizen, because let’s say you or someone you know was going on a vacation to say... London, and they were departing from Shanghai. Well, to get to London, the BFR would launch from Shanghai and would leave the earths atmosphere (like explained in the video). Not only would this reduce the time difference but it would provide 2 vacation experiences, as the passengers would get to be technically, in space! It is a marvellous opportunity, and would be lovely!
And we could have a KickStarter to send all the flat-earthers up just so they can have a "duh!!" moment ;)
@@allbadtakes Of course, unfortunately, they would all somehow calculate that they are looking at some sort of videoscreen with a fake image (not so LOL)
@@voicetube They are gullible enough to believe the earth is flat so I'm sure they would be gullible enough to step into an airlock and open the outer door to have a more convincing look (we can but hope :-) )
@@allbadtakes I will indeed give you SORT of an LOL, as regards your reply :-)
@@voicetube it's called the airlock
Reality of BFR travel:
New York to London flight time - 30 minutes
Check in - 30 minutes
Good for nothing TSA security - 45 minutes
Pre-boarding 200 passenger - 60 minutes
The boat ride to the rocket - 15 minutes
Still better than an airline trip.... and you get to go to freaking SPACE!!!
I agree, but SpaceX will reinvent the process and improve it considerably
and when the lose your luggage it will end up in orbit.
@@nPcDrone 😂😂 thats cool.
No, Boat to rocket > 3 hours on both ends. Boats are the slowest form of travel and you MUST get way out from population before you can launch.
"I am serious and please don't call me Shirley"
Ohhhh Leslie Nielsen
Leslie.. Shirley either one ok
He was never the same after that last mission over Macho Grande. He developed a drinking problem.
The BFR launch doesn't necessarily need to take place out in sea to prevent disturbances to populated areas. As you said, it just needs to launch/land far from people. So they could basically just launch it in deserted areas.
ehhh I wouldn't count on that.
Yeah, problem is nobody lives in deserted areas. So there goes the whole 40 min travel time thing if you're spending 5 hours to get out in the middle of nowhere.
H3ckster, not unless someone reinvents the laws of physics. And half the problem is not the rocket engine, it's the sonic booms. Same reason the Concord was never successful.
I agree the transport required to get to/from a deserted area would be well worth doing over having to travel from a coast if you're trying to go inland.
Good luck finding any deserted area in places like western Europe, Japan, or most Asia.
I think buisnessmen will appreciate to not need an entire travel day to get to other side of the planet. Also starting could be a lot smoother, of course increasing fuel costs, but that is not too concerning, since long distance buisness class tickets are several thousand dollars. If I could choose between a 14 hour flight and a 30 min space flight with maybe a continentel flight of 2 hours, what results in probably (with boarding, check in, smaller waiting times) in 4-5 hours to get from your starting point to your final destination, I would choose the short variant, because you could do it after breakfast and be home/at work at noon, or have a meeting in the morning and fly home and eat dinner with my wife.
Do A380 aircraft really make 3.5 flights per day over their entire lifetime including maintenance downtime?
But businessmen can just travel overnight in business class with a lay-flat bed, so that's no time lost really as you travel when you sleep, and I really can't see BFR being cheaper than business class.
The only costs past the vehicle are for crew. They can make their own cryo-methalox for free so fuel is not a consideration.
newsgetsold It is just not the same as same day return trip.
Well It certainly wont be the budget airline market.
“Making a dent in the aviation industry”
Uhhhh there’s something else doing that now
Covid
Nature Portal yes
EL PASO
I imagine that's great for BFR. the air tickets are going to see a sharp increase in fares. Making BFR more lucrative venture.
2:05 "Surely you can't be serious !?"
"I am serious and don't call me surely"
HAHAHA
Movie Airplane, in case you haven't - go see the movies, they are great! lol
Man, what a channel
Don't be such a hater
@@dosmastrify ikr
dosmastrify The fuck? 🤨 he wasn’t hating.
andarax8 yes nice. question: can you get some of these channels with the comments disabled/excluded? They add little and annoy and distract a lot from the content of the vid. presentation. It is hard not to look at them, I admit; and I do troll as much as the next guy. kinda like a train wreck you keep looking at again and again. soooo, never mind!
The final design for city space ports will likely use hyperloop instead of boats to save time required to board
That would actually be genius.
@@kahoot9659 like the boring company is doing right now
@Rick Lokers but.... The hyperloop can be 'as well as' boats. Hyperloop station at the boat terminal, brings people from far away quickly, boats also mean that multiple launch pads can be managed easily and moved if needed.
Why not helicopters? They could land you right at the launch pad. Maybe even pick you at your house. That would cost money through. So would a hyperloop, the launch pad, the fuel. It isn't going to cheap, not for a long time and by the time it's common it'll just be annoying just like flying across the ocean is now.
@@myothersoul1953 coz a helicopter won't carry 300 people......
It think you're getting it all wrong with the price. Time is money. If we only have to sit in this rocket for 30 minutes instead of 12 hours, it doesn't matter what the comfort is, you don't need to be served food or drinks. I'm pretty sure most business class customers who today fly these 12 hours routes would opt for the BFR even at the same price. And currently the prices of such business class tickets are closer to $5000 for both ways. At this price, the BFR could compete with traditional airlines, and it would completely eliminate long-distance business class.
Even though my bucket list only contains one item and it's "go to space", I'd take the 12 hour flight since the chance of dying is smaller by a magnitude of hundreds of thousands. I'd definitely risk the 1% chance of death to see space at least once in my life if given the opportunity, but not as a regular mode of transportation.
to be exact, chance of death on an airplane is about 1 in 60,000,000 whereas astronauts are somewhere between 1 in 31 or 1 in 50 if I remember correctly (over the course of their career)
Better go with virgin galactic approach, it's way, way safer-
@@Lolimaster Virgin Galactic's approach is statistically the most dangerous method right now. Lets keep to the facts here.
then why did they retire the concord?
The challenge here is not only just how long it take to get to your destination. Sure, it may take only 30 mins to fly from US to Australia. But you will also need to wait at least 2 hours every time between fly to proceed through custom, standing in line, checking luggage, waiting to get your luggage when you arrive, and all of the other procedure.
but don't people have to do normally on a regular airline as well? the difference here is the whole taking a boat to you rocket thing. Or this might be some sarcastic joke that went over my head and people are going to reply "r/whooosh" to me
Great video. In discussing the cost of flight, I'd like to point out that Mrs. Shotwell mentioned that unlike airlines that fly a plane to a long haul destination only once a day sometimes even two days; the BFR could fly multiple times a day. I think that's a game-changer too.
But the plane is able to turn around much faster (less than an hour if it needs to) unlike the bfr who would need to be reassembled. Picking the capsule and put it on top of the rocket. Plus what they don't tell you is that rockets are not able to fly in all weather conditions.
Also, imagine trying to board that silly barge during a storm.
A mach 4.5 jet could do NY-London, London-NY, NY-London, London-NY in a day with the same crew. With a jet technology that is doable. Below mach 5 the stress and heat of materials are not so extreme.
Yeah, a Mach 2 jet was an abysmal failure, so let's increase the cost of a supersonic jet further and try again! Makes perfect sense!
the airplane clip at 0:41.
RIP Leslie Nielson, and thank you for the laughs
there aren't enough words for me to describe how much I admire Elon Musk
@King Brilliant Im only gay for elon
Astro i think we all are
There is something seriously wrong with your look on him.
so yeah instead of of just playing your offline GAMES and turning ON airplane mode
Theres now orbital GAMES and rocket mode
I wish the rocket journey was longer so we could play online games. We would have really good wifi flying next to the satellites.
@@arnavjain55 1-0 noob from space !!
I think the idea that a BFR flight would need to compete with airline economy prices is unrealistic. If business people, the rich and celebrities were willing to pay $10K for a one-way NY to Paris Concorde flight, they certainly would be willing to fork over at least that for a 39 minute BFR flight from North America to Asia. People who are able to trade money for time will always do so, and those who are price-constrained will opt for slower conventional air travel. So the profitability scenario may be a bit more attractive to SpaceX than that presented in this analysis. However, there are are still giant safety, environmental and regulatory hurdles to overcome before any such flights could be contemplated. Also, the technology of BFR is designed around payload to-orbit or interplanetary applications. Using BFR for sub-orbital hops is like using a Formula One racer to pop over to the local 7-Eleven. I suspect that if such flights ever become common, it will be using a something more like air-breathing rockets and airplane-like forms being investigated by NASA and others, rather than the BFR or other highly-reusable rocketry.
If they can make this a reality, in 20 years, I will be 55. I'll definitely do it.
Quick maths🤔 your 35
.i will be 41. And me too.
I will be 33
@Michael James man I dont want to hear that shit. It's monday!
@Michael James so sorry. Nut maybe not. How many years do you have.
I like your video but I disagree with one important part, cost. In the beginning, BFR flights will be for those who can afford it. I would see those costs around $1,500 per ticket. I can even see the average person spending that amount of money to go to Japan, Korea, or China from LA. I think people are eager to experience a new kind of flight.
Jeffrey I agree, that price was set very low.
To be fair, even doubling the ticket price, people will pay...
I could either travel (with changes ect) for a day (with proper jet lag) for a day to get to Australia from where I am...
Or pay double and get there in well under an hour....
Am gonna pay double!
I recently got a ticket to the other side of the world for $700 and 30hrs of travel time. I would easily pay $2000 to do that with a rocket.
1500$ is not a lot of money for many people. This money could be saved already by the 30min flight instead of 13h for many.
Even if it’s 5000$
also people would think it is cool to go out of orbit and maybe seeing the curvature of the earth
all thumbs up for the BFR . stopping technological developments is just impossible.
it will not be as safe as airplanes...definitly not anytime soon...but it will be MUCH faster.
for those who want to travel ultra fast for a higher price, less comfort and more risk...it would be worth it.
it wont replace air travel but it will complement it
Musk said that cost will be similar to general economy class
@@jimmyfalcon1869
he said many things...but its ultra hard to make it that cost effective. just the fuel cost are extreme, not to mention making the BFR insanely reusable with those amounts of stress on it. it will be unlikely to reach those levels anytime soon for sure. reaching a comparable level of safety will be almost impossible too.
so it would probably be more expensive (ideally not by much), less safe, less comfortable.
but u will get ultra fast travel with a nice view too.
cobrazax Bro it is using liquid oxygen and kerosene.
@@SomalianDuke
Maintenance and fuel costs together are significant
It doesn't need the same safety standerds as planes have now. If it's as safe as planes were in the 60s, people will do it. Especially considering the speed.
Your point of view is good, however, I think current or tougher safety standards will be applied. Let's hope for this project come true and experience such a flight adventure.
but current Astronaut death rate is 1 out of 31, and airline death rate is 1 out of 60,000,000 ... even getting to 1960's airline safety levels is a 6 orders of magnitude improvement (about 300,000 times better, LOL). The cost will kill this idea before safety concerns ever get tested for real .. Musk is absurdly optimistic, but then that is his job, marketing spin that generates investor cash. Many predict that BFR will morph into a highly profitable unmanned space cargo launch carrier .. there just isn't any near term practical use for carrying hundreds of people into space at once.
The other issue is the inherent violence in ballistic rocketry. The vast majority of people aren't going to want to be knocked unconscious by 4 to 5 Gs of force on liftoff, vomit in free fall (the Vomit Comet got its name for a good reason) and then experience a fiery, hypersonic plunge into the atmosphere, followed by a rapid, last minute deceleration just before barely slowing to a stop. It would be the equivalent of bad turbulence on absolutely every flight.
Only if people would accept death just for traveling faster...
Jonathan Dirks no, in the 60s people didn't know any better. People are very aware about safety standards. Your argument seems flawed. People won't risk their lives if risks are significantly higher just because it's more convenient.
BFR will not replace traditional airliner in anyway because the problem of comfortability.
However they will find market in military use. Imagine the ability to deploy troops and supply anywhere on earth (including behind enemy lines) within the matter of hours. That military strategist wet dream.
about a 100 years ago, people using ships like the titanic would say the same about airplanes and now let's see if they would say the same- Give it time. There's always something that will replace a technology. Take the internet for example, it has replaced television and it will continue to do so that we no longer need a tv set to watch news but just a laptop or holografic proyector to watch whatever. Sure there are still plenty of networks broadcasting shows on tv channels but once Netflix came out, so did many other services like hulu, HBO, etc... about 10 years ago we used dvd or BR to watcha movie, today is trending to disappear due to high speed internet where you can stream away any movie or you buy music mostly from itunes or websites selling music as data than a physical store selling cd's. Mobile phones have replaced regular land line phones that used a chord or their wireless versions, and has absorbed to a point the fact that you no longer need an average film camera to take photos any longer unless you wanna go retro.
Wow! I now see the U.S. Space Force operating BFR's around the world. Mind blown!!!
Darimonde they can’t space x is not a government agency
Would be even more catastrophic for the planet than regular planes. I am fascinated by space exploration amd I think spaceX did some great things, but I sure as hell hope that this will never become mainstream.
Why can't tickets just be more expensive? I'd pay double to get somewhere in a fraction of the time. So would most wealthy people, who value time a lot.
David Scheurer The reason SpaceX are even considering this is to get a revenue stream to finance the development of the BFR and trips to mars. For that it needs to be more than a niche service for the rich.
@@andrewpaulhart Hollywood's twits and other celebs alone could provide financing for Mars; their whole lives are about being the "first with the most"!
@@andrewpaulhart Daddy NASA, and by extension the American people, are the ones financing most of SpaceX. E2E BFR is a publicity stunt to reel in scientifically illiterate investors and raise brand value for Elon's various companies.
@@ronschlorff7089 We should get a Kickstarter to fund Hollywood one way trip to Mars
@@after_midnight9592 Matt Damon might pay for his own, and he knows his way around there :D
0:37 **zooms in on a very expensive plane ticket**
Earth to Earth wouldn’t need the booster. The BFS alone has enough delta-v to get into orbit with a small payload, so it would make no sense to use to booster for suborbital flight
Maybe for the "heavy cargo versions" of BFR E2E [not something lame like written mail, but massive stuff that needs to be transported ASAP for whatever reason]; the use of a BFB for the ENTIRE ascent phase plus the initial "slowdown" (separating in the descent phase while still out of the atmosphere), with the BFS using a minimum of fuel for the landing (while BFB also lands nearby the same destination).
Dinkelstein Kerman hmm I see your point
You only need about 1.2 to 1.4 G of acceleration to reach orbit (it depends on aerodynamics, so BFR probably can go on the lower side).
-> The main reason most rockets go higher than 3 G is to save fuel (less time "fighting gravity" and more incresing speed); but this is not necesary if you have excess fuel [full tanks with not even half of the max payload mass].
Also... Almost forgot that BFR E2E never goes "into orbit" (all launches to all destinations are suborbital); so the max speed is MUCH lower; so the time spent accelerating to reach it (at low G) is not even 1/3 of the whole journey.
Argamis (SilverComet) yes that was my original point. If you can reach orbit without the booster suborbital shouldn’t be a problem
0:48 whats the next step in air travel? go above the air!
I'm surprised, as a lover of science and technology, by the people who promote tech while adding a great dollop of magical thinking, it seems contradictory.
It's what happens when you blindly follow people.
I would honestly like to know if you said the same thing about landing and relaunching an orbital-class rocket five years ago
For the record, magical thinking refers to the belief that thoughts on their own can influence the world. What you’re referring to is credulousness.
Fair point.@@AndrewDun1
I'm not familiar with your example nor am I clear about the point you are trying to make. @@rolandfeussner1892
8:12 actually it is not only one of the safest, but the safest, you are literally safer in a plane than you are on a bike
@@axsmasher4 well depends on how big of a plane I suppose and how good your balance is
trains?
*gives like, 10 arguments against this idea *
"it's entirely possible that rockets may replace airliners"
Very good good point in the mentioning of how back then they doubted planes would ever come this far.
I think people would pay more than first class for a ticket when you factor in how much faster it gets people to their destination as well as the initial cool factor. I probably wouldn't be one of those passengers until all of the bugs are worked out, my biggest apprehension is safety
Raymond Barry you spend more time in the rocketports don’t matter if it takes 10 minutes. When you spend 5 hrs in ports
I agree
@fladave99 Mills What the fuck are you even on about. Can someone throw this nutcase back into a looneybin?
@fladave99 Mills cost of each flight is 2 million dollars and it can carry 200 people so the cost of each ticket is about 10000$ not 6000000$😁
I think Elon and Gwynne know that Earth to Earth is a long shot and I very much doubt they are motivated by it. I think them and most space nerds (myself included) are far more excited about BFR to Mars. Earth to Earth is a way to get space outsiders interested or at least talking, and I'm all for that.
A VTOL TSTO like BFR is not likely to be used for suborbital point to point other than maybe a few publicity stunts.
One big issue is restacking the spaceship on the booster which would at a least be as involved as mating the Shuttle to 747 carrier aircraft.
A HOTOL SSTO like Skylon would be much better suited for suborbital point to point transport.
It's being designed purely for Mars and other higher-up spaceflights. Even if this use of it is plausible, it wouldn't seem like the most sensible vehicle for the purpose, if this could actually be economical they'd design a different craft from the ground up optimized for this mission - though maybe they'd use their existing BFR/Starship as a proof of concept to lead to the development of this new vehicle. As for Patchuchan's remarks of the restacking and mating and all, I'd think even a regular Starship (BFR upper stage) could do this all single-stage, no need for the lower stage booster, as the lower stage booster arrangement is for escape velocity, a suborbital hop would need far less delta-V, and that would save a lot of costs and hassles. But a vehicle designed for this purpose specifically rather than a far more capable (and thus more expensive) interplanetary ship could do it all even better. I'd think more of a spaceplane design, something with wings that looks more like the Space Shuttle and can glide down rather than a pure rocket descent. Maybe capable of taking off and landing horizontally, allowing for use of existing airports, or even capable of either horizontal takeoff/landing or VTOL depending on if the facility in question has a launch pad or runway.
At the time, mankind didn't know about the physical effects of a wing, no one could imagine that we would use planes to go on holiday. But..we fly rockets to space since more then 70 years now. We know about the effects, we know the dangers, we know about how ridiculously much energy it needs to reach that height.
Sure, people need dreams, and they will keep defending them.
It's not just a dream. Major parts of the rocket are already developed. The info showcased in the video is from SpaceX. Even if the average person can't afford to go at first, it will get cheaper, and better systems will be developed, until spaceflight is similar to a train ticket.
And still rocket technology, the most inefficient and dangerous way of moving cargo.
8:02
Messerschmitt Me 262
What are those interesting bigger planes with the curved wings in the background?
I think Blue Origen & Virgin Galactic have the right idea for a commercial rocket business plan with space tourism.
That is the one thing you can only get with a rocket that nothing else can do.
In 30 minute flights everyone is going to want to unbuckle and experience 0-G but there won't be time. (No more than the vomit comet)
#dearmoon is a great example of this.
Just like the original Tesla Roadster, you start with a luxury service that is low volume / high prophet.
Much later you can do the 'Model 3' type consumer level things.
Its awesome we have at least 3 companies trying to do this
I think that Blue Origen should fusion it with Ariane or another company of space to advance
@@johnleicester3812 I don't think they need too. They already have deals selling there engines (BE4) to ULA and are currently building the new Sheppard. I think they're on track and merging would just slow them down.
You don't factor the number of travel of BFR can make in 14hrs vs. the traditional of 1 flight per 14 hrs. BFR can go for 30min. vs 14hrs of flight. They don't need to lower or increase their price, they can maybe lower it even more to disrupt the airline industry.
Let say hypothetically: for airbus international travel of 14hrs per flight, BFR can do roughly 25(conservative) flight vs the 1 flight of the traditional airplane. Also the fuel of BFR is methane based so it's a lot cheaper than traditional Rocket grade fuel.
Did you watch the TED talk of Gwynne Shotwell talking about BFR Earth-to-Earth Travel? Here's the link:th-cam.com/video/Dar8P3r7GYA/w-d-xo.html
It takes more than 30 minutes for turnaround of a commercial airliner. Logistics are even harder for a rocket where cargo and passengers are high up, the fueling needs to be faster, etc.
You're assuming the main cost of an airline is the capital expenditure on airplane purchases, but usually it's fuel, maintenance, labor, just about everything but the airplane purchases. Fuel, maintenance, and to some extent labor all scale with number of flights rather than number of aircraft
First of all it would be closer to 90 mins per flight as you wouldn't want to reach orbital velocity.
And secondly those launches would need to happen around 100 km offshore away from anyone as they tend to be quite a bit louder than airplanes when landing or taking off so in reality you would still be looking around 2 hours of traveling before and after your initial flight in order to to and from the cities you were actually traveling.
@@markussavolainen Really 100km away? Where did you get that numbers?
One rocket can't make more than one flight every 14 hrs. The reused sections need to be refurbished and the parts that aren't reused will need to be replaced
@@seandonahue4469 why would you assume they would only have 1? they could have many and as they refurbish 1(also, the video said the new rocket would not need to be refurbished) their using the others.
a transition to "air" craft to "space" craft
Huge factor overlooked is not only making a long international flight go from 14-17 hours to less than an hour, but you going into space too. Weigh less for over 15 minutes and awesome view of Earth. Many would pay over $10,000 just for that. Imagine the vacation package. LA to Australia in 30 minutes, see Earth from 150 miles up, weighless for $10k. Likely would be booked solid for months on end.
Yep, but wont they need 100s (or more) of successful cargo flights without an explosion (death) to even consider taking people?
CO2 pollution is not even the major problem, but noise pollution is a bigger concern.
well, the boat will transport people away from land to the launchpad, and rockets aren't painfully loud in the first place
@@mattmoquin6943rockets are pretty damn loud my dude...especailly compared to planes
co2 is also a problem when you think about rockets instead of planes...planes are much more efficent
@@greynolds17 specially sonic booms, hell Concord had this issue.
@@greynolds17 The amount of fuel that is burned is mind blowing. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but is Ion propulsion more efficient, or is it used in most launches? In my head, Xenon is more efficient, or is it just another emission which is not efficient?
"In the event of loss of cabin pressure..... you won't be able to sue us, because you'll be dead."
Passengers: HEAVY BREATHING
@@nethascotx24 they wont be breathing
Demonic Dominic nah they'll be able to breathe for the rest of their lives
well propulsive rocket landing wont be allowed anywhere near cities anytime soon, so add that travel time as well
Have some humans landed in the shit yet?
Hyperloop and bullet trains. I havent tryed hyperloop yet but bullet trains they are effective
If concord was too loud, pretty sure bfg would be 10,000 times louder
Interesting yet I really doubt it.
1). It can be mistaken as a missile attack
2). It will just make more and more space junks
3). Regular civilians can die from heart or panic attack.
4). Good travel means safety, slow, enjoyable, comfortable.
If only we can teleport then I will say yeay! To the future of travel.
>1). It can be mistaken as a missile attack
Not quite. The launch is announced beforehand, along with all the trajectory details. Also, Starship is far, far bigger, than any re-entry vehicle of ICBM.
>2). It will just make more and more space junks
No. The entire point of Starship/Super Heavy is its full reusability. Both stages are recovered and reused. There are no pyrotechnic bolts, so, staging does not produce the junk either.
>3). Regular civilians can die from heart or panic attack.
I assume there'll be some kind of a health check, before one boards.
>4). Good travel means safety, slow, enjoyable, comfortable.
Not for everyone. Some just want to get to their destination faster. And for those, Starship Earth-to-Earth will be a godsend.
Hypersonic planes such as the A2 seem like better solutions for high speed long haul travel, logistically speaking. It's a single stage vehicle which is capable of using existing airport infrastructure and therefore doesn't require staging of boosters, given that it's a purely atmospheric vehicle. It also won't require the same G-forces for reaching orbital velocity, unlike it's orbital counterpart the Skylon, so it's flying experience wouldn't be entirely far removed from conventional airplane travel. With that being said, it still has to contend with its sonic boom, limiting its use to flights over oceans. Boeing also has a turboramjet hypersonic airliner and German Aerospace Centre has it's two-stage rocket powered Spaceliner that could potentially compete with A2 and BFR. I would say the Spaceliner is a more potent candidate for competing against the BFR since it uses existing rocket technology, while the A2 and Boeing's vehicle utilize jet technology that could take years to materialize.
The video should consist of a one-word answer to the title: "No".
If yes, then I can't wait how Ryanair lands one of these.
Bye the time hey do we will be able to teleportort
ZOOOooOOoO-BANG
I Shake when I fly on normal plane, I would get a heart attack if I’m in that thing
pussy
I will poop my pants if i was on there
The only thing that would be give me a heart attack would be the cost of the ticket
Sakurako Hikari idk why but I feel dizzy when the plane goes up then I shake
@@gazey that is called feeling the blood being pushed more to one side of your body because of g forces and a slight adrenaline kick. not everyones body reacts too well to it. but just a slight shake is a normal response from your fight or flight respose when hit with adrenaline.
4:15 get ready to get demonetized
Epic Boomer Moments B I G F U C K I N G R O C K E T
Its actually the big *falcon* rocket
@@bigmac3373 nah, big fucking rocket
0:53, ohhh, so it’s “Big FALCON Rocket”.... that makes more sense
A guy who names his capsule "Dragon" and his engines "Merlin" just HAS to know what BF_ means
I think the BFR's biggest customers initially will be businesses. The time reduction will revolutionize international delivery, and I bet companies will probably be willing to absorb slightly higher costs if they save 6-7 hours per shipment.
I see the technology to be most likely to be bought into by the military (which has already looked into a similar project with SUSTAIN (look it up on Wiki. It's awesome and you'll ask why we never went through with it)).
I can definitely see how the military would want to send 500 Marines + weapons and ammunition (Obviously vehicles would probably have to be sent over beforehand) across the world in under an hour. Plus, the Military would be the prime market for the startup phase:
A strong core of young, healthy, and physically fit passengers that can take the G-Forces? (most astronauts are recruited from the military anyway.) Check. An organization that is willing to take riskier options for transport and people that are willing to take that risk for an obvious and extremely powerful advantage in capability? Check. Nigh-Unlimited pockets that will be willing to fund expensive projects and take cost overruns for a promising project? check. People with facilities that can be launched out of and landed at where no one cares about noise pollution? Check. An organization with a history of revolutionizing the consumer market with its funding of technologies to better their own operations? Check.
The military would be the perfect customer to start this sort of thing off.
I agree. If they made it safe and comfortable they can charge like 5k easy.. a lot of people fly business and first class.. when I went on business trip to india..22hr flight inlcuding lay over in london, it cost my company 12k for round trip in business class. If I could fly on the bfr for 5k and get there in under an hour I would.. plus imagine the view! People might be hesistant at first but after a year if there were no problems.. i think it would be the preferred choice for business and first class passengers.
it or some variation of rocket travel to me, seems destined to happen in the next 40 years! I'm glad we are exploring more ways to improve on rockets!
Finally! 😌
I would love to be able to travel via SpaceX from USA to Australia. That would be amazing.
Jerry A on a 10 megaton bomb
@@haydenbarolette8952 I mean, everything with combustible feul is a bomb...
@@theemperor-wh40k18 yup the god emperor of mankind sit on a warp chaos bomb 😊
Short answer, No.
Much longer answer, you'd have to take into account logistics, location, weather conditions, launch capability, and availability. Airplanes can land fairly close to major cities (some complain about the noise though), rockets, as stated in the video, would be limited to landing near coastal areas (and there would still be major complaints about the noise, rockets are much louder than jets). Airliners can both take off and land under weather conditions that would cause a rocket launch to be scrubbed.And it wouldn't just be the rockets, the entire launching and recovery infrastructure would have to be built (gantry towers, launch pads, refueling areas, passenger and/or cargo processing areas, and accessways from metropolitan areas to the launch site) at each location where you intend to have service.
The best of all possible alternatives would be a system similar to Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, a series of suborbital rocket planes that can take off (with the assist of special carrier planes that would also be housed in special hangers at the airport) and land at most major metropolitan airports, with very little modification since most of the needed infrastructure is located there already.
Yay to rationally thinking people. Take note, Elon Musk.
In my opinion, maybe? If you factor in that you can land kilometers away from land and take a loop or hyper loop back to shore it becomes more logical. It could become more quiet then conventional airplanes. Also if they started by tying the launch access points to existing loop/Hyperloop infastructure that's alot of the work done. Building things like towers and launchpads are nothing campared to the main rocket so I'm not too worried about that.
@@Daniel-pl1vh weather is already a small issue, its been confirmed to launch in 60km/h ground speed winds and 300 km/h high altitude winds.
www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/8wv1ut/elon_on_twitter_bfr_will_be_able_to_launch_in/?
@@max_amann Cool, there's that then I guess. I think then it just comes down to the noise of a literal rocket inside a city and the safety issues with that mainly.
@@Daniel-pl1vh I figure that they could have thier landing pads out of the city then use a loop/Hyperloop to get there quickly (much faster than boat).
HOLY COW THIS IS SO EPIC!
It's crap.
Yes , flying is the future for transportation of people and things. Space, here we go!
"Could SpaceX's BFR replace traditional airliners?"
I have consulted a mystic and the answer is NO!!!
@@noobtube7344 Dude. tf ? Do you even listen to yourself ? So first of all, "Dropping flight times under an hour". No. If you know anything about Sub Orbital Flight Path you will know that the G Forces during flight are extrem and often times get over 10 Gs. ICBMs can travel this fast because they dont have to slow down and high G Forces dont hurt them. So yes, the BFR could do that in 30min, but everybody would be dead.
How do you know that ? SpaceX said that they would drop the Prices to 1/10 of normal launch costs by 2010 or so. And this didnt happen.
How do you know that ? As far as i know, SpaceX is doing about as good as other Rocket Companys in terms of Safety. So about 89%. Which is suicidel for comercial launches.
No it cannot. This kind of Sub Orbital flight is to dangeros, other kinds with space planes are not. But transporting people with Rockets is not a very good idea. It never was. But it works because we did a lot of work but even after all of this work, we just barrly hi the 90% mark. Meanwhile a plane has something like 99.9999999999999% and even if something happens, you will most likely survive.
@@erikhall1146 A. Do YOU hear yourself. The official given numbers (by SpaceX) compare the Gs to an amusement park ride. Second, airlines were also unsafe as a new technology, had they listened to people like you, those levels of safety would not exist. The actual problem is fuel consumption, and that is what could make rockets impractical.
Edit:
Musk is an optimist. He sets ambitious timelines, just because something is behind schedule doesn't devalue what they have accomplished
Sure believe in a " mystic " lol ! sad
@@noobtube7344 Rockets are ridiculously inefficient compared with jet aircraft. Its a fundamental fact of physics. A huge constrain of the civil aviation industry is the cost of fuel; energy used to move the plane through the air. Rockets use far, far more fuel to fly the same distance as airplanes do. Rockets will always be hugely wasteful and expensive to fly.
Pollution is a problem too, rockets just burn fuel and dump the exhaust straight into the air, and because they use up so much fuel, the pollution could be shocking. You could potentially use hydrogen or methane, but these are still expensive for the amount of fuel you would need.
Also because rockets need so much energy to fly, they need to store a lot of energy on board in the form of flammable, volatile fuel. As we saw firsthand on 9/11, a fully fueled jumbo jet is able to release a dangerous amount of energy if all that fuel is simply set on fire. Rockets use orders of magnitude more fuel than airplanes. Large rockets could do (small) atom bomb type damage if they exploded.
@@snarkylive Your Argument is invalid. Think about how big an airplane is, and only part of that space is filled with fuel. Rockets are larger than airplanes, and almost entirely filled with fuel and oxidizer. Just by looking at the relative amounts of fuel used to go a similar distance, you can debunk your argument for yourself. The key problem with your thinking is that, in order to fly a ballistic trajectory from on point on earth to another, the rocket has to accelerate to a much higher speed than an airplane ever reaches. Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass * velocity^2, so our energy needs increase with the square of the velocity, meaning that the much higher speed that the rocket needs to go is a big problem for your argument that rockets are more efficient. Go back to physics class.
Lol the thumbnail...
The short answer : *_NO_*
This moment is just like the start of aircraft one day this will be in history
Seems like the anti-Tesla idea. Burning fuel inefficiently to transport the few.
So Tesla is for everyone, then?
I put some thought into it and actually suspect the fuel consumption might end up being on par with jet airliners. This would need to carry huge amounts of propellant, but most of that is liquid oxygen. Fuel would be liquid methane, which is relatively cheap, far cheaper per energy-content than kerosene that airliners burn (also less carbon emissions per energy as well). Airliners, it must be remembered burn a hell of a lot of fuel too, at takeoff a long-haul airliner is often carrying it's own weight in fuel. For a flight like this I suspect it wouldn't need two stages as shown in these videos, that's for flights to the Moon or Mars, for a sub-orbital hop I would think Starship (the upper stage) on it's own would be sufficient, greatly reducing cost and fuel requirements. As this video shows, it would be more expensive (at least as currently envisioned) than airliners on a per-seat basis, but not by as much as we'd expect. And it carries a hell of a lot of people, not just a few like a business jet or even Concorde would.
Tesla Motor is actually the Anti Tesla. Nikola Tesla is wireless free energy. Tesla Motors is just a GigaFactory Trojan to monopolize Lithium-X voltaics. Electric cars existed even in Nikola Tesla's time except he decided to work on a viable power source instead of gimmicky novelties.
Search for cryogenic engines
Methane
Sign a disclaimer. Simple. Its safe enough I would ride one.
people start to pass out at 7 G you had to pass a medical examination
@@worton1968 I look at the math and see roughly what they would experience. Technically you would be following a ballistic trajectory then again you aren't. There's rocket assistance. Yes some forces but not 7 gs worth
@@worton1968 He steven, I looked into this. Please dont take this as me being trying to be some snotty jerk. The initial takeoff would semi uncomfortable to the weak, frail or sick. However for the healthy person its very much a fun rollercoaster type ride. The G forces Would be in that range.
As long as it wasnt treated as a ballistic missile the over all G forces could be minimized. The idea is to get out of the atmosphere quickly leaving behind all the friction. Hit your speed and then re-enter taking a much easier re-entry trajectory than an orbital velocity space craft would.
This is very do-able and with some engineering could be very cool for the wealthy at first then opening the way for the common peasants like me and you.
stupid question, no. unless we achieve super efficient engines and power generation, i world prefer to pay less and wait 12 hours to fly on a plane which also has a much lower risk of blowing up or crashing.
Where are you getting the reliability figure for the BFR?. it hasn't happened yet, so you have no evidence that it will be dangerous
It's a damn rocket, the most dangerous form of propulsion.
A man in the 1900s: Stupid quesiton, no. Unless we achieve super efficient engine and power generation, I would prefer to pay less and wait 12 days to ride on a train, which also has a much lower risk of blowing up or crashing.
@@SavageDragon999 You can't compare a fuck7ng rocket to what happened 100 years ago. Also being sceptic is the most important aspect of technology. Uf we would just acceot everything rich assholes would throw at us, the world would be bankrupt. Also we are very very far in terms of rocket propulsion, and we know how dangerous it is, unlike 100 years ago when they knew very little about the train, which was just invented. A train won't explode like a rocket because unlike a train, a rocket is about 95% highly explosive and dangerous fuel. You are sitting on a bomb up there, and when anything goes wrong, EVERYONE on the rocket will die. You can't make many safety features for rocketflight, unlike for planes and cars etc.
Your comment showed us that you are a naive moron. You are the kind of person who thinks that technological innovation has no limits at all and that human intelect will always win over nature.
@@phyrinx3740 "You can't compare a fuck7ng rocket to what happened 100 years ago."
You're right, you can't. But he wasn't comparing them. However, what he was comparing is people's nay-say to newer innovations when such things are drastically different than what they're use to.
"Also being skeptic is the most important aspect of technology."
Not necessarily. You can be an unreasonable skeptic, or you could be a reasonable skeptic. If you have decent reasoning's for being skeptical than you're perfectly right.
You can give constructive criticism for why you think it may not hold, and it can be beneficial. If you're the type of skeptic that doubts absolutely everything for no good reason, and just spouting out nonsense, than you will not benefit anyone or anything, so that type of skeptic aren't important to technology.
"You are sitting on a bomb up there, and when anything goes wrong, EVERYONE on the rocket will die."
So are planes.... Not as explosive, but they're still that. It's just that innovation and repetition has made them very cheap, affordable, and very safe. Rockets over time become safer and safer, and more affordable. It certainly isn't at that ideal point yet, but it's starting to appear with the newer Falcon family.
Also, this is false that everyone will die... It entirely depends upon the rocket. The space shuttle everyone has an extremely high chance of dying if it exploded. But the Falcon 9 will have a far more practical escape method if things went wrong. Depending upon how the rocket explodes and where they're, the computer will trigger the escape system and everyone could survive.
" Your comment showed us that you are a naive moron."
They just making a comment of people whom has said the same thing in the past, and has been proven wrong, make him a naive moron? Then this comment must make you a prick.
The original question was stated under the presumption that rockets will not have great improvements in the future, then yes, it's a stupid question. However, We see their being new innovations which is changing the industry on its cost. Safety comes from repetition, and SpaceX seems to be doing a pretty good job at that. The fact that rockets are showing an improvement, makes it clear that the question itself: "Could SpaceX BFR replace traditional airliner" far from a stupid question. It's plausible if it keeps up over many decades, and keeps on improving. It COULD very well replace them.
"You are the kind of person who thinks that technological innovation has no limits at all and that human intelect will always win over nature."
It amazes me how you concluded that from his comment. He seemed like the type that thought people that say this is a stupid question, has been proven wrong in the past, so it isn't an entirely stupid question when we see these innovations being made in the last few years. He never made a comment about that technology has no limits, and that human intellect will always win over nature. Next time, Try to not make a straw-man from his main point.
Very very comprehensive video.. beautifully put..
Lol 2018
F9: used 10 times then bin
2019
F9: used 10 times then refurbished use again
I was about to say "It's never going to happen" when 6:51 🙄
A big problem with encouraging people is the landing type.If they know it is called a suicide burn people probably will not want to go on the BFR
Thats why SpaceX calls it a Hoverslam
Búi Helgason LOL, that doesn't sound much better either.
I guess they will come up with some consumer friendly term for it. One that doesn't sound so violent....
It actually isn't using the suicide burn/hoverslam method like the falcon 9. It has a way higher fuel margin for landing allowing for a slow deceleration and landing.
@@max_amann But its still a suicide burn or hoverslam.It will just be a longer hoverlam or suicide burn.
@@sohanturtorial3856 I think it technically doesn't fall under the definition of suicide burn because the suicide burn requires the burn to be started at the most efficient time in order to save the most fuel where the BFR wastes some fuel in an attempt to reduce G force. Although with a word like suicide burn the definition isn't really set in stone so we could both be right.
In all seriousness, I think before this is used by civilians, the government will most likely militarise it. Moving 850 troops halfway around the world in 30 mins gives any nation a significant strategic advantage, the only problem would be the cost and the availability of a large quantity of rockets, plus spaces to land them, in times of war. Moving 100K men would take like 120 rockets (Ish). Finding a spot to land 120 rockets near a conflict zone won't be easy. I can def see it happening tho
Valid point. Military applications have carried much of the risks and costs of developing new technology, as the history of aviation shows.
Take off and landing of a rocket will never as safe as a plane but it will be safe enough. However the actual flight phase in space will be the safest form of travel as there is zero stress on the vehicle.
You have to remember the space junk.
Right now, you have a 1% chance of losing a rocket on a single flight. Your chance of losing a commercial plane on a single flight is is ~0.00001%. That is including the fact that modern rockets are only launched once. If planes were only flown once, they would never fail. Rockets have a LOOOOONNNNNGGGG way to go. I need something safer than 1% to risk my life...
MrMhmToasty Check your statistics on driving a car, rockets don’t need to be safer then planes, they only need to be safer then driving a car. Then the majority of people should fly in them with no more fear then they have driving their own car to the rocket pad...
@@livefire666 Then why do ~1 in 31 astronauts die on the job? Because rocket travel is still inherently unsafe. Musk still has a lot to do to make rockets much, much, much safer.
Actually let me clarify. The very smart people working for Musk have a lot to do. I've met one of the original propulsion engineers at SpaceX (Caltech Alum, I'm an undergrad there rn) and he said that Musk oftentimes doesn't understand the technical challenges and details.
Nobody seems to be talking about eh huge amounts of fuel the BFR needs compared to an airliner. And how pollution and simply getting fuel will be a problem if rocket travel is to be made mainstream
Elon did speak about it. Using the same tech to refuel on Mars. Creating methane from water and air, means the gases the rocket expels into the atmosphere during launch, are removed from the atmosphere during extraction. Zero net pollution.
+Donald Garrett Musk does not understand thermodynamics, Gibbs free energy, chemical kinetics. If he did, he would not make dumbass assumptions that some desired technology is possible. He would crunch all the numbers FIRST.
What nobody seems to be talking about is the massive number of reasons why this is a stupid idea, like noise, cost, chance of death compared to airplane, how to get to and from remote launch pad quickly, etc.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 they're just using solar. You know they don't have to burn fossil fuels to make energy right?
@@max_amann what has Elon musk done to this world. So many stupid people have a reason know to feel smart
What about space debris problem?
its supposed to be fully recoverable
@@The_Noob-io5fy he is talking about space junk already orbiting the earth.
@@kjetilhvalstrand1009 boo hoo
I will become a rocket scientist and create a space junk de-orbiter!!
Thats why its reusable
short answer: probably not
why? The BFR is basically the more expensive version of the Concorde
I don't doubt that it will be possible, but I highly doubt the schedule Musk has set. Yes, we come a long way in aircraft technology, but is has been over 100 years
actually he has set no shedule yet for this small side-project... it was just shown as another possible use-case for the BFR
The more time you have, the more you take it. That’s why Elon always have close deadline. Even if it means not achieving the goal on time
The thing to keep in mid about the pace of technology development, though, is that our tools and building blocks are all much better now -- from computers, rapid prototyping, robotic manufacturing, advanced materials, etc.
Next thing you know, Airbus will start trying to have partnership with BFR. Oh did i say parntnership?
I meant Ownership
Lol I doubt it. Airbus fully understands the aviation logistics business and isn't gonna fall for snake oil intended to fool scientifically illiterate potential investors. The industry demands CHEAPER, not FASTER. That is why Concorde failed, and it didn't even have the host of problems that one would face with going suborbital.
@@lucidonoccasion5012 Maybe not the cheapest, but the enviroment. The concorde kept on making holes in the ozone
Guys read the vehicle part on the bottom of the ticket LOL 😂 4:16
That's what BFR stands for
@@MoonfireSeco He changed it last week to Starship and Starship heavy if its ontop of the first stage
Moonfire No it stands for Big Falcon Rocket
@@chandlerjames3311 everyone knows its name is the Big Fucking Rocket. Elon just can't officially name something like that tho.
I see it says big fucking rocket