London to NY on a rocket will take 29 minutes

Don't become an engineer. You would end up killing people if you tried building something.

im not the one putting blind faith on "feedback systems" and "redundancy". you're the type of dumbshit who just thickens up an I beam without context and calls it a day because that's "redundancy". i hope your lineage ends with you.

What a massive waste of resources.

>They've said they think they can compete with airlines on ticket prices.
Is Elon lying or is he really that deluded?

>concorde 2.0

yeah it will work this time

>They've said they think they can compete with NASA on launch prices
Is Elon lying or is he really that deluded

...

Ah fuck, tilt your heads I guess.

>concorde 1.0 was too good for this gay earth

>what happens if there are logic errors?
What happens to an airliner if the wings fall off?

Flying an aircraft is complicated. There are problems that can happen at speeds a human can deal with, as well as ones that can happen at speeds a human can't deal with.

Flying a rocket is much simpler, and none of the problems happen at speeds a human can deal with. A skilled pilot is not needed and not useful. At most, you'll have someone picking a divert option off a menu.

I see a lot of ppl saying "bb-b-ut what about the Concorde?"

A) that was completely different tech
B) that was tech was developed almost 50 years ago

If we thought that new paradigms couldn't happen due to failures of old technology, we would be absolutely nowhere technologically speaking.

Tbf the Big Fucking Rocket (BFR) is going to have other uses outside of this, like mars shit.

>comparing the probability of a a wing falling off to a code-monkey making logic error

a rocket landing has many chances of achieving unstable equilibrium options due to logic errors, leading to a cascade in motion that will crash it due to the system trying to right itself into a newer reference frame. this can't be circumvented without some operator, remote or whatever, intervening. legit can't argue against this. it can and HAS happened.

I see a lot of ppl saying "bb-b-ut what about the Concorde?"

A) that was completely different tech
B) that was tech was developed almost 50 years ago

If we thought that new paradigms couldn't happen due to failures of old technology, we would be absolutely nowhere technologically speaking.

>you can't compare logic errors to mechanical failures
>legit can't argue against this
Don't be a chimp.

Just give up, this stuff is an overly ambitious pipe dream. The energy applied and therefore the costs would stand in no relations to the meager benefits. Musk's entire Mars colonization presentation yesterday was one big display of megalomania. This shit is several scales different from electric cars and even from reuseable LEO delivery systems.

>meager benefits
I once paid 5000USD for the privilege of 2 extra inches of shoulder space on a 12 hour flight. Regular tickets were 1/10th the price. If such a flight could be reduced to an hour or less, I would take such a flight frequently regardless of cost.

Why does Veeky Forums continue to worship this idiot who just comes out with unrealistic goals:

>muh Mars
>muh terraforming
>muh rockets

The guy literally sucks dollars from the US govt and people worship him. Pathetic.

I'm sure you would.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITS_launch_vehicle
>Cost per launch US$62 million (2016 estimate)

this

how the fuck would anyone not expect this to fail at some point?

9199753
>estimate of a rocket that hasn't even been built
considering that these exact same posts are spammed in absolutely every last thread related to Space or Musk, perhaps /pol/ is on to something when it comes to shilling

If it were regular unique criticism, it'd be fine, but no matter what is refuted or how, they keep saying the same bullshit about him every single day from dawn to dusk in every last thread they see

Imagine the possibilities for muslims

Godd job Elon you really thought this through I see

>ITS project cost: 10 billion
>cost per launch: 62 million
>Space shuttle program cost: 210 billion
>cost per launch: 450 million to 1.5 billion
no matter what musk does, he still blows everyone else out of the fucking water

bonus round
>150 Tons = 136,077.711 kilograms
>62,000,000 / 136,077 = 456 dollars per kilogram
Current lowest publicly announced cost to orbit is held by the Falcon Heavy, built by SpaceX, at 2,200 dollars per kilo
Second lowest is the Falcon 9, built by SpaceX, at 4,109 dollars per kilo
and in third place is the Ariane 5, built by the ESA, at 10,476 dollars per kilo

If they don't count their own fucking rockets, then they beat the next person up by a factor of 23
you can be asshurt about Musk all you want, but you deny math itself if you want to say he's a fraud

>They've said they think they can compete with airlines on ticket prices.

Even if this is true they're talking about Private jets and luxury suite tickets not your basic economy seat.

>Lets do hyperloop bois
>Now let me create an immediate competitor against my own company

Is Elon retarded?

The point of the Concorde comparison isn't the tech its the price. Elon thinks he can price it on the same level as a regular airline ticket. That's extremely ambitious and its far more likely that it will cost much more than a regular airline ticket. He'll be lucky if he can get it priced on par with First Class tickets. The reason that the Concorde is a good comparison for this is because the Concorde is proof that the majority of people would rather take longer to get to their destination than add a zero to the end of the price of their ticket.

He'll sell you both the rocket ticket to get to the spaceport, and the hyperloop ticket to get from the spaceport to the city center.

Nah, its just 4D Chess. These projects are just a front. Decoys. He set them up as a way to get potential competitors to try and compete with him knowing full well they will fail.

The real project he is working on is teleportation.

What spaceport? He's talking about Rockets to travel from city to city, which is the hyperloop's market.

I can't wait to see how assblasted /pol/ is when he actually makes these things and they work.

>inb4 Elon still hasn't delivered nuffin

Since when is Elon /pol/'s enemy?

One of their memes is that he's a fraud and hasn't done anything/ is a product of government corruption.

>Elon's white
>/pol/'s white

It is clear that /pol/ doesn't even care about government corruption as long as it is white people doing the corruption (see Trump) so I believe you are pulling this out of your ass.

>i have no comprehension of linear time

They perceive him as a leftist because he builds electric cars, solar panels, and other environmentally friendly products. I agree that it's retarded though.

>The Space Shuttle program was the United States government's manned launch vehicle program, administered by NASA from 1972 to 2011 and first flown in 1981.

The rockets aren't going to land right on top of your destination. At best, they'll get clearance to land these things in international airports. At worst, they'll have to build new sites even further from the cities.
Passengers will need a regional transport (rail, a long taxi ride or a ferry from the floating landing platform) to get from the landing site to the actual destination. If they build a new site, hyperloop could be part of the spaceport package to make up for the long travel time back to the city.

As for rocket rides competing with hyperloop for intercity routes, there are major differences in travel costs, capacity, relevant ranges and setup. Hyperloop is going to be much cheaper once it's te up and much higher in capacity, while the rocket will be able to go further and faster (good luck laying those tubes across the Pacific) and require less effort to extend (building a landing pad at a new destination is much easier than building a tube all the way there).

But Elon himself said that he has no qualms about cannibalizing his own products in the name of getting to Mars. If it came to having Hyperloop lose out on some

Veeky Forums imposter please leave

You are now aware that pilots have to jack shit except for landing and takeoff.
Pilots are only there in case of an emergancy, and when such an event happens they often no longer know what to do.

youtube.com/watch?v=kERSSRJant0

Sub orbital hops seem fine for moon and other bodies but is it actually practical here? Aside from green hysteria that will ensue once nuclear rockets fly around carrying death chemicals above their heads, the fuel and maintenance costs could very well be punishing.

Seems like concord on steroids to me. Maybe its just a strategy to hype the bfr to the normalfags?

Has there ever been a "pilot" that has LANDED A ROCKET, VERTICALLY in the history of ever?

I don't think a human would be good enough to handle the controls to land a rocket perfectly vertically.

The best thing is to just make the self-landing technology to be as battle-tested as possible, make it so it's basically flawless.

Correct answer

Not only are you pathetically butthurt, you're also completely fucking retarded

This is definitely an attempt to get SpaceX finally making money

And getting other countries to agree to it

From the video I don't really think China would be thrilled with us sending suborbital flights their way

>hey here's a flight with people its totally normal
>just kidding its a nuke

Air France and British Airways blamed low passenger numbers and rising maintenance costs for the fleet’s retirement. Not becoz of crashes

>Including transfers thats like several hours long,
as opposed to planes where you can just show up and get on board. oh wait!

WOWOWOW
HYPERLOOP
BTFO

>They've said they think they can compete with airlines on ticket prices.

They say a lot of things. But, I feel they neet to start deliver on many of their promises.

>Remember the Concorde
a plane that took several hours to cross the atlantic

Of course it's feasible. It has just never been done before. SpaceX is the one doing this because they're the only ones that have ever had the chance to do so. Being able to launch so much with cargo is going to allow them to find any possible errors in their designs without killing people. This will allow them to make sure the rockets are safe. It will happen, who knows when though.

This is easier than plane flights, believe it or not. We just need it to be reliable and economical. Lots of people will do it just to go into space for like 20 minutes, let alone get anywhere in under an hour. This is probably the future desu. I can't see any other design that would allow us to travel this fast in any economical way. Hyperloop is 100% bullshit though.

>Another use for a system that is already being developed
>Theoretically can make money for the company

why the fuck not

How many successful launches would you like to see before you actually trust the rockets won't go full Challenger?

Also, how many passengers could handle the g forces?

So according to you MP3 players should never have taken off because those Rio ones you used to get weren't very successful? Is that actually your logic?

>I don't understand what a statistical probability is.
Usually businesses that fail do so for good reason. The Concord was fast, but too expensive. A rocket would be fast, but also undoubtedly too expensive.

>they're only developing the rocket for this one single purpose, right guise? THAT'S WHY ID WILL FAIL OBIOOSLY

>implying the concord is even comparable to this
see

You clearly havnt ever heard of automatic control systems. They are used on so many places you wouldnt even be able to realize where we would be without them. Every car manufactured has an ESC nowadays.

The main thing is that this rocket isn't being built for the sole purpose of intraplanetary travel. It's being built to go to Mars, and also to launch satellites. Point-to-point Earth travel is just a bonus.

yeah, you have like transfer time of 2-3 hours all in all. For a rocket launch you can make that 5-10 hours.

>For a rocket launch you can make that 5-10 hours.
>source my ass

It is, because it showed that there are not that many people that need to travel across the world in a record time. You could fly first class in a normal plane for the cost of a concorde flight, and most people preferred that. The concorde was never profitable and after its crash the very few people willing to fly with it turned to close to 0 people willing to fly with it.

Also, the time factor isnt that much in favor of SpaceX. You also have to calculate in transfer times, and then you dont even save that much time compared to taking a normal plane. So you have an extremely expensive, dangerous, and uncomfortable way of travel vs. cheap, safe, and comfy as fuck.

yeah, because a rocket can launch at any weather and doesnt regularly get delayed for hours.

>He doesnt know a rocket has to cool down for 2-4 hours before you can even depart it

Im not even getting into all these rocket launches getting canceled because a rocket can only launch and land in ideal weather circumstances.

You know what bothers me about this concept?

Earlier this year he was all about the underground hyperloop. Why switch to rockets for the same thing instead of bringing back the Concord?

This is stupid. The only real purpose space travel will serve for us in near future is research. Musk should try to build a huge telescope in outer space, so that we get a clear and good view of the universe for once. That would yield at least some utility for humans. Colonizing a planet that is 100% hostile to any form of life or this stupid shit idea are the wrong goals. Build a giant telescope, Elon.

Next step then should be a space-based particle accelerator.

Colonisation makes no sense until we are able to terraform planets, which will take quite a while.

>it showed that there are not that many people that need to travel across the world in a record time.
there weren't many people that needed a phone or access to the internet with them at all times and now virtually everybody does. you create new needs you create a new demand, that's how innovation works, if we were only catering to established needs we wouldn't have moved an inch past hunter-gathers society. there's not many people willing to travel across the world because it's such a hassle. a vacation to australia entails 2 days wasted on just getting to and coming back from there. the concorde could only shave a couple hours off a flight that only took 5 hours to begin with. not even remotely comparable to bringing a 9 hour flight down to 30 mins. even if transfer times were utterly impossible to bring down (big if) it would still beat 2 days worth of flying.

> So you have an extremely expensive
remains to be seen
>dangerous
implying technology will never improve
>and uncomfortable way of travel vs. cheap, safe, and comfy as fuck.
again flying is only cheap and comfy(implying hard) on relatively short routes. try flying across the world and let me know how comfy and cheap that day long flight was.

A hyperloop would be better for shorter travel distances while rockets would work better for long distances. Try imagine making a vacuum tube across an entire ocean to connect Europe and America for instance. That shit aint gonna work.

you think we have reached peak rocket technology? there no more improvements and advancements to be made?

People dont travel across the world because it costs around a thousand bugs to book an intercontinental flight. I dont think rockets are the kind of technology that brings down that price point.

If we assume transfer for rocket flight is the same as for airplanes (and that is very generous), then we are talking 4.5 hours vs. 13 hours (2 hours transfer for both boarding and departure). There are not that many people on this planet who are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more, pass on the luxurious 1st class flight, and the reliable safety of proven-to-work airplanes just to get somewhere 8 hours earlier.

Its not exactly rocket science though is it....

Well it could be going to worse places. At least he seems to be getting people excited about the future.

Some citys are too close to warrant a rocket but far enough away that a train would take a few hours. The hyperloop would be a good intermediate.

>People dont travel across the world because it costs
and because it's a pain in the ass
>I dont think rockets are the kind of technology that brings down that price point.
but they bring they the pain in the ass point

> hundreds of thousands of dollars
why do you assume it will always be ultra expensive? why do you assume it will be unreliable and dangerous forever? basically why do you assume no more technological advancements will be made?

I dont think you ever flew first class son, it's the best part of vacation. For no money in hell would I change that to cram myself into a rocket just to save a couple of hours.

>Try imagine making a vacuum tube across an entire ocean to connect Europe and America for instance. That shit aint gonna work.

While I respect your opinion user, the idea of a tunnel underneath the English Channel, much less the idea of a car being feasible by all accounts 200 years ago was insanity. Besides, I thought the idea was for the BORE hyperloop from NYC to LA. Not exactly the pressure of an ocean on top of you some hundred feet below the ground but I get your point.

I just wish we'd use rockets to build moon and mars bases over Jetsons larping.

>I wouldn't
Oh well too bad. But not everyone is a fat American who doesn't value his time.

Channel tunnel took 6 years to construst a 30 mile road. If thats the speed we're going at it might well be better to see how this rocket idea pans out.

>Ad hominem when you are out of arguments

That has to be the great european culture people talk about.

Also, europeans didn't exactly go crazy after the Concorde, and one tiny accident was enough to send it to the shadow realm forever. And the time savings including transfers between Concorde and regular are not that much smaller, than regular and rocket. Concord NY-Paris took 7 hours including transfers vs. 12 hours, rocket would be 4.5 hours. And the trade-off was also the same, more money and less comfort for a shorter travel time. People simply dont care that much about the travel time.

I think people care a lot about travel times these days. A lot has changed since the 90's especially in terms of the sheer numbers of people flying and who are willing to fly.

Maybe on a day to day commute, but nobody gives a fuck if a journey he takes once a year or even less takes 12 or 5 hours.

>comfy as fuck
Is this a meme? There's nothing comfy about flying. Pre-flight, post-flight and everything in between just sucks.

>>Ad hominem when you are out of arguments
>implying there was an argument to begin with
your whole argument was "i wouldn't so no one else would." you're ascribing the way you personally feel to everyone else and calling it a day. and this all stems from the fact that you've never taken a long flight.

Speak for yourself man.

I've flown so much over the years that I don't mind the pre and post flight shit. Being on the plane is by far the most annoying part.

Nobody mentioned crashes. It's all about utterly unrealistic cost estimates versus utterly unviable real costs. HOW, just HOW is a space rocket supposed to fly fewer passengers at a far greater fuel expense for the same price as a plane? Even in the most elementary cost examinations Musk's plans simply do not add up. It's the same garbage as with the Hyperloop. He claimed he could do it for half the price of a high speed rail through California, now his cost estimates are eight times as much as a high speed rail. It's fucking laughable.

>ended in 2011

I spend most of my time on /pol/ and nearly all times Musk comes up he gets a positive reaction
he is rocket man that makes cars on the side

They all want him to succeed greater than ever before, so they can build their "white ethno state" in space

They promised reusable rockets
They succeeded with that
They promised cheap launch prices
They succeeded with that

how far are you going to move the goalposts until you accept that he is indeed upholding his end of the bargain

Perhaps. But alot of construction projects at least in the US aren't a matter of technological limitations, but unions and contractors trying to pump out every dime they can out of a project.

In my hometown, it took two years to paint a suspension bridge until everyone got wise about the money the contracting company was making to take that long to paint the bridge. Now it takes them a month.