SpaceX - is it a pipe dream?

robfosters

robfosters

robfosters

Caporegime
Joined
1 Dec 2010
Posts
53,723
Location
Welling, London
So many of you will have seen Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket on the news. If you haven’t, here’s a link http://news.sky.com/story/spacex-new-rocket-can-take-you-anywhere-on-earth-in-under-an-hour-11058653

Do you think it’s a pipe dream or just a matter of time? I think it’s possible, but the timeframes being bandied around of 2020-2030 are ludicrous imo. I couldn’t see it carrying passengers for another 40 years, if ever. There’s too many problems and too much cost involved. One of the major problems being that the average person is just physically and mentally unsuitable to be blasted into space, and that’s without the havoc it will cause with normal ATC. There’s the chance of accidents too. It’s one thing a plane going wrong and crashing to the ground, it’s another breaking up in space and leaving hundreds of dead bodies floating through space.

The final obstacle would be cost. I can see a ticket costing no less than 10-20k at launch. I think most people and companies would rather just save thousands and take a bit longer to get somewhere.

Space tourism a possibility, but I can’t ever see this being used as a mass transit system. Maybe I’m just being pessimistic, but I think I’m more realistic. Props to Musk’s vision though. We wouldn’t be where we are today without people like him.
 
matter of time, Unlike other companies they are bending metal, the rocket engine is already in testing and they have already tested the carbon composite cryogenic tank.
Usual Elon time applies, so don't expect it to launch in 2022. On average SpaceX is 2 years late. With this I'm thinking more late 2020s/

Its also a far better plan than the original plan they released last year

edit - oh you are talking purely about the earth to earth flights, That's not going to happen, sonic booms, passenger health, zero G, legalities of rockets flying over other countries. Only be able to land at sea and thus coastal cities only.

ALso the bodies wouldn't be left floating through space, it's a suborbital flight, they would burn up in the atmosphere.
They'l be used for mass transit system just to the moon and mars instead., which is their actual purpose.

For fast earth to earth flight. You have NASA working on a quite supersonic aircraft which will be able to go supersonic over land, unlike concord/rockets etc. You also have reaction engines developing the saber engine which will allow hypersonic flight at high altitude in the region of 3600MPH.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure. As far as doing stuff, Elon Musk seems to be the man of the moment to make it happen. I'd be dubious that passengers could be taken within 7-8 years, but the rate in which his companies tech is progressing is quite startling. Also, without a government budget to keep happy it seems there are less restrictions.

Either way, it's great to see this progression, sadly from private companies rather than nations, but progression is progression.
 
I suspect that the Wright Brothers faced similar questions once upon a time. At the end of the day once there's profit to be made with something, development gets sped up and made cheaper which also results in cheaper flights.

Musk is a weirdo. People have been messing around with electric vehicles for decades and it never really took off, Musk pretty much single handedly kicked that motion in to life faster than any of the massive car brands. If anyone's got a shot at making space tourism a thing, it's Musk.
 
It is just matter of time. I too think the timings are optimistic, but I'd prefer them to drive as fast as possible in an attempt to meet that timeframe and then fail to meet it, than not drive as hard as they could.
 
I don't think it will happen because VR will take over (allowing for teleportation) before rockets become financially viable.
 
Diddums said:
How are VR and teleportation related?
Click to expand...

Online virtual worlds won't require travel and will effectively enable teleportation. I think these worlds will be more captivating to people than the physical world in future and sectors like real estate, manufacturing will switch to digital.

Also if robotics progresses, there is the possibility of hiring an android at the other side of the world and controlling it within VR.
 
I bow to the Musk's and Bezos of the world. Keep going guys and push out any vision you think which will extend and expand upon the imaginations of space exploration for many a human on planet Earth!
 
These sort of flight times are all very well but unless you live next to a spaceport your overall trip time isn’t going to change much outside of a trip to the other side of the world.

It’s an issue with the Skylon project as well. Great, I can get from the UK to Australia in four hours on a SABRE powered plane.

But I need to spend an hour or two on a plane to get to the north of Scotland/SW (depending on where they put the space port - it’s not going to be near any large population centres). Then when you get to Oz you’re going to have to take another flight of a similar/greater length to get anywhere near the place you want to go to.

So all in all a journey that could take you 18 hours on a regular jet plane will still end up taking you 7-8 hours if you’re lucky (and all your flight transfers Line up. Flying from London to the US for example would be even worse, taking 5-6 hours, no different to the time it would take you to fly on a normal jet.

Then there will be the cost. If you’re a regular in first class then you’ll probably be able to afford the flight. It’s unlikely to be anywhere near affordable for the majority any time soon.

Now all this could change eventually, but as much as we may have transcontinental spaceflights in our lifetime it’s unlikely any of us would be able to justify the cost/afford it any time soon unfortunately.

While they may end up being technologically and economically viable it’s got the “Concord” issue, on steroids. A very small number of routes and depart/arrival locations and a phenomenal cost.
 
It’s unlikely to be leaving form heathrow any time soon (or any time soon after it’s first few flights).

If it does you’ve still got the issues Concord had until it gets high enough, and it’s still going to cost multiples more than a normal flight.
 
Well yes there's years of development left, then it has to be economical and built out like any technology.
As to the sonic boom issue NASA is working on that. You can design planes to both lessen the boom and deflect it in certain directions allowing for supersonic flight over land.

Spacex didn't give anytime lines for earth to earth the 2022 is for mars plans.
 
Amp34 said:
These sort of flight times are all very well but unless you live next to a spaceport your overall trip time isn’t going to change much outside of a trip to the other side of the world.

It’s an issue with the Skylon project as well. Great, I can get from the UK to Australia in four hours on a SABRE powered plane.

But I need to spend an hour or two on a plane to get to the north of Scotland/SW (depending on where they put the space port - it’s not going to be near any large population centres). Then when you get to Oz you’re going to have to take another flight of a similar/greater length to get anywhere near the place you want to go to.

So all in all a journey that could take you 18 hours on a regular jet plane will still end up taking you 7-8 hours if you’re lucky (and all your flight transfers Line up. Flying from London to the US for example would be even worse, taking 5-6 hours, no different to the time it would take you to fly on a normal jet.

Then there will be the cost. If you’re a regular in first class then you’ll probably be able to afford the flight. It’s unlikely to be anywhere near affordable for the majority any time soon.

Now all this could change eventually, but as much as we may have transcontinental spaceflights in our lifetime it’s unlikely any of us would be able to justify the cost/afford it any time soon unfortunately.

While they may end up being technologically and economically viable it’s got the “Concord” issue, on steroids. A very small number of routes and depart/arrival locations and a phenomenal cost.
Click to expand...
Well thank **** you are not in charge, miserable **** :)
 
The Mars challenge is certainly very exciting but it will be interesting to see how they plan to overcome the issues which have so far hindered it. Long term exposure to zero gravity and radiation. Several people crammed in a small capsule for over a year - we're not talking USS Enterprise here, which needs to carry enough fuel, oxygen and food for the trip (assuming unmanned craft have carried supplies in advance for the planetary expedition and return journey). It's a vision to get excited about to be sure but, other than the money, we were being told in the 1970's Mars was going to follow on almost immediately from the Moon shots (or so my Brooke Bond tea cards told me). Instead, we actually regressed to no further than high Earth orbit for manned space flight the last 45 years...
 
I don't like Musk, he talks a lot of ****, mainly for free advertising. Lots of people are convinced he's some sort of visionary but I think it takes a lot more than rambling about the "dangers of AI" or "space exploration, it's just around the corner!", to be considered a visionary. His current companies have been losing money since their inception, he's not selling much and his "innovations" have little/no practical purposes (hyperloop?).

SpaceX is a pipedream, we need a more efficient source of energy to start going into space as tourists.
 
Arazi said:
Well thank **** you are not in charge, miserable **** :)
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with being miserable, rather being realistic unfortunately. :p

As an example IF they can reduce the proposed noise of the engine down to something airports are allowed then how much do you think it will realistically cost to send a hypersonic plane halfway around the world with 200-300 passengers?

The current thinking is the planes will be used from dedicated space ports, at least for their space flights. The UK government have a shortlist. All on the coast and most away from civilization.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31711083

The issue is for the plane to get up to hypersonic speed it’s going to need to be over the ocean, because noise. Once it’s up high enough that may not be an issue for the rest of the flight, until it has to drop back down to subsonic speeds, which it may well have to do over an ocean as well. That may well mean a detour away from the location it wants to fly to and quite possibly a spiral like route to get to hypersonic height and speed.

And let’s not forget, the biggest issues with Concord was economics. It cost $12,000 to fly transatlantic. That and supersonic books were/are the two biggest reasons only a dozen or so were built and why no other types have so far been built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom