One hour City-to-City anywhere on earth

So....
THAT's what they're up to.....

 

This would involve the BFR or something similar. A very large quantity of liquid oxygen plus liquid hydrogen (or methanol?) would burned in lifting and landing phases. A few hundred people would make that quick trip.

For which, I suppose, they would spend much more than for a 13-hour jet flight. More fuel burn per person. More CO2, if methanol is in the burn. And cites at both ends would need places where BFR can make its ups and downs. Airspace set aside for 'vertical' flights.

Overall, possibly providing net benefits. If Musk can't do Mars without revenue from these hypercommuters, it's his case to make.

 

whatever happened to telecommuting and video conferencing? why are we trying to find ways to burn more fossil fuels?

 

Just so. I forgot. Energy is required to produce the cryo fuels. Whether it is 'carbonated' or not depends on local situation.

 

I remember seeing an airline advert hoarding from the 1970s when I lived in the UK, which boasted "Breakfast in London, Lunch in New York!", to which some wit had added "…and luggage in Singapore!"

 

Reminds me of DG Compton's SF novel in which all long haul airline passengers are anesthetized, put into capsules and loaded as cargo. Wake up at the other end refreshed and ready to go!

Maybe we'd be rid of the incompetent TSA.

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Saw the video yesterday. At first I was like, "Not practical. It's too expensive." But then I was like... what if I could say that I've been into outer space and experienced zero gravity?

 

There's certainly a market for it among the ultra rich. It's not rare for CEOs at some of the largest corporations to get paid $10k+ an hour. Therefore if a one hour flight costs $90k more than a 10 hour commercial flight it would theoretically make sense for them to take such a flight.

 

This is about getting to earth orbital speed. The last I heard, getting a human up to that speed, then back to sitting still on the ground, safely, is still vastly more expensive than a CEO's paycheck over an air flight.

 

Those with most money may crave this experience. Great, if it can happen without harming everybody else's (shared) planet. Musk (essentially) said this would be his revenue stream for Mars action.

I think that Mars should follow 1 or 2 centuries of Moon action, but 'slow adopters' do think that way.

 

Rocketing upwards has involved 3 or more times Earth's gravity acceleration. Yer ultra-rich customers are not up for that in general. Musk needs to make up and down legs both more gentle.

We ought not expect to see accelerometer data from current SpaceX flights. Wait instead for some future flights to be done more gently. Then tickets might be sold.

 

I'm thinking that 3G for that flight profile might be a little....(sorry!) "light."

There are data available for every Space-X flight and G-forces can be calcu-guessed from those data.

The US Navy and USAF might be able to provide information about exposures to high G environments, as they regularly take media and celebs on demonstrator flights....proceeded by the usual briefs and screenings, and media weenies and celebs come in all shapes and sizes.....and "I'm told" that they experience some surprisingly high g-loading, albeit for shorter duration.

Fun Fact:
The Angels usually if not always fly sans G suits.

After reading all of the articles about how the Concorde programme was an utter failure both financially and ecologically, I cannot possibly imagine how one can scale that idea up to Musk's "1 hour" model.

But....we'll see.

As I've said more than once before, the landscape is littered with the shattered speculations of ex-spurts who said: "He can't do that!"

 

The Concorde spent more time burning fuel in thicker air.

 

Mother's quote from yesteryears: the devil find work for idle hands to do! Had no idea what she meant.

There are recreational chemicals that provide a similar experience for a fraction of the price, allegedly!

Yeah, but we did it and you're only jealous cause Boeing couldn't. That said, we needed French cash in the mix to make it viable and they demanded the 'e' on the end of Concord. It was the oil crisis and associated fuel cost increase that made it overly expensive, and the Paris crash sealed its fate. Nevertheless, Branson wanted to buy the fleet and run it under the Virgin Atlantic flag, but was denied by Government.

 

The Concorde was an impressive plane.
The best way to reduce flight costs for long trips, while not increasing the time, is to get into thinner air.

On a somewhat related not, what ever happened to the flying wing configuration for a commercial plane? I thought they would be more fuel efficient than the typical tube with wings design. Wouldn't work with existing airport loading and embarking facilities?

 

Truth is, I don't know but suspect your idea is close to the mark.

 

The fuel weight of a fulled loaded Concorde was barely over 50% of its full takeoff weight. That fraction is simply too low to get to the Earth orbital speed needed for this sort of fast travel.

 

African or European?

 

I'm familiar with only European and Asian varieties, not African.