Airplanes make this a dumb idea. Using a rocket is too expensive and dangerous, frankly I though SpaceX was going to go for a space shuttle design or a Hermes design for its mars transport. Need to get away from using rocket boosters
I think the only drawback will be only allowing carry-on luggage to meet weight restrictions. So this also means less security risk. Also means obese customers won't be travelling. Imagine 100 kilo restriction per person.
@@jasongoodacre Weight doesn't matter. This rocket has a payload capacity of 100 tons to LEO. It has enough room to hold a 800 passengers. That's on average 56 tons of humans, which still leaves enough weight margins for facilities. Also don't forget that 100 tons is the figure for LEO. Flights between cities don't reach orbit. The payload capacity is actually way above 100 tons. No concern whatsoever.
It will take 30 something minutes from Hanoi to Los Angeles. Meanwhile it takes 1 hour or so from my house to my school due to Hanoi's traffic. Better start looking for a school in different continent.
The booms would only happen when it slows below the sound barrier. That would happen over the ocean (because laws). As for on board you don’t notice the boom whatsoever.
No sonic booms were heard during sn8 test flight, elon confirmed the vehicle was falling at terminal velocity, this might indicate that the terminal velocity is subsonic and starship won't produce any sonic booms at all
@@90percenthuman39 It will re-enter and be hypersonic at altitude. There will be sonic booms. The velocity will bleed off but i'd imagine it will fall below supersonic at around 15km and big vehicle produces big booms. Also the booster will re-enter supersonic also so there will be sonic booms at launch sites also.
@@liyifenn Planes to carry people across the world were ridiculous to people when the Wright brothers made the first plane. History is repeating itself.
I am curious though.. I know the flight time may be just 22 minutes to go from A to B, but how much time is spent actually travelling to the rocket and back to mainland once it lands? How long do we need to sit in the rocket before it actually takes off? What are the weather implications for these types of commercial flights? If winds are too strong all of a sudden, is the flight canceled? I'm sure these are all taken into consideration by the SpaceX team no doubt, but I am just wondering what the answers are. With regards to the time question from above, I guess it's completely inconsequential if we're talking about literal half-ways around the world type of trips which would otherwise take like 15 hours to do by plane.
Airplane uses ~ 36000 gallons of kerosene for a 10hr flight. 19hr flight = ~74,100 gallons. Avg cost of kerosene : $2.27 Total cost (10hr) = ~$81,370 Total cost (19hr) = ~$167,207 Rocket fuel used ~ The first stage uses 39,000 US gallons of liquid oxygen and almost 25,000 US gallons of kerosene, while the second stage uses 7,300 US gallons of liquid oxygen and 4,600 US gallons of kerosene. So : Liquid oxygen used - 46,300 gallons Kerosene used - 29,600 gallons Liquid oxygen cost : $0.67 per gallon Kerosene cost : $2.27 per gallon Total cost : 31,020 + 67,192 = $98,212 This is all based off of SpaceX’s Falcon 9. We don’t know the specifics for the BFR. It’s most likely larger. Someone below mentioned they would use methane instead of kerosene. Using the same measurements as before, that brings the price down to: Methane cost: $2.11 Total cost : 31,020 + 62,456 = ~$93,456 This is obviously leaving out a lot of the costs for building a rocket and what not, we also don’t know EXACT measurements for all the distances & how much fuel was used for each distance. I’m also just using prices off of Google, so I don’t know the actual cost, but I found it interesting, so I hope you do too! 😁
gas is short for gasolene, why the hell are you calling kerosene a gas? Also, try comparing it with a 19 hour flight from JFK to SIN that required 222,000 litres of jet fuel.
@@istoleurfaceha3527 lol even ppl in the 1500's knew earths not flat. And now look after centuries of technological advancements and man going to space himself for proof and these ppl stuck as cavemen 😂
Jordan Lewis you sound extremely naive. He said in the full video (41 mins) He was the designer for the falcon 1, because he couldn't hire anyone else. Also he used his own money to make and build SpaceX. If you ask for a link, then go to the top of youtube search bar and simple type in "Elon Musk". The speech just came out. It's not that hard to do your own due diligences, and go research before talking. Do you know of anyone else doing amazing feats like this guy? There isn't many. And for you to belittle him, makes you seem like an idiot. I hope you understand that...
@@baha3alshamari152 it's more like a supersonic jet engine or y'know a rocket, in other words you will have to go through specialized training just to not go unconscious while riding this thing
“Anywhere on Earth in under an hour.” Not quite. 30 mins to board ferry 40 mins ferry transport (optimistic) 30 mins to exit ferry 30 mins security 30 mins to board rocket 30 minute flight time 30 mins to exit rocket 30 mins to board ferry 40 mins ferry transport (optimistic) 30 mins to exit ferry Total: 5 hours 20 mins (optimistic) Other things to consider: 1. The weather requirements for a rocket to land are extremely strict when compared to commercial airlines. This will lead to unimaginable delays. 2. The fuel requirement per passenger will be at least 5-10 times greater. This means 5-10 times greater fuel cost and 5-10 times greater emissions. 3. The risk of death is 54,000 times higher. (1 in 100 rockets will explode vs 1 in 5,400,000 commercial planes that will crash). (3a. Rocket science is a mature field. The first rocket was built only 7 years after the first working plane. This risk factor will not magically change.) 4. All passengers must undergo minimum of 3-6 months of training to withstand the 3g's of force that a rocket will apply to their body. 5. The Concorde could fly the same '30 minute' distance in about 2 hours, and still failed commercially. TL;DR - Elon Musk is selling you hype to inflate the value of his stock.
There's security delays and transport delays to airports already. Speeding up getting to the Starship is a problem but solvable. We don't know how safe Starship will be because there hasn't been a fully reusable rocket design before. It's possible with enough testing it will be reliable. I'll give you the weather, that is a limiting factor
other side of the world would take about 30 minutes. other side of a continent, lets say north America, would take like a max of about 8 minutes of flight.
I wonder what will happen if you call during the flight. The enormous speed of flight would probably red/blue shift your voice as you speak into the phone.
@@mateomartinezhernandez832 I mean, currently when you get to an airport there's already hours of waiting, this could be similar; it's also possible that they could do customs preps and checks while on the boat (don't ask me how they'd organise that)
@@dsdy1205 Even then the increased price and the 1/100 chance of death wouldn't make it worth the hassle, also enduring up to 3gs would make it unusable by anyone who isn't healthy.
Man who wouldn't want to be strapped to intercontinental ballistic missiles while experiencing 3gs (enough is enough to make you collapse), probably will cost tens of thousands of dollars per flight, has a very high chance of exploding and also has the added bonus of producing significantly more CO2 than a plane which can carry far more people.
What is more polluting and consumes more fuel than an airplane is a hoax repeated a thousand times. Starship uses Hidrogen(Zero Emissions), Super Heavy uses Methane, it is 6 to 20 times cleaner than the kerosene used by airplanes and falcon 9, (Methane only has one carbon chain, kerosene can have 6 to 20 carbon chains), SuperHeavy uses 59,000 US gallons of fuel, that is, less than a 747-8 that uses 63,000 US gallons. The liquid oxygen used as an oxidant and Hidrogen/Methane are renewable sources, to be zero emissions you will have to be careful to use renewable energy for the entire process.
This is really aging well. Christ, the guy is worth that much and still only puts out CG from 20 years ago. Like most things Musk, this is a stupid idea that he is trying to oversell to push his stock.
Everything on this channel is bs made up to boost the stock market. Spacex doesn't make a profit, instead its stock value increases. And although none of the CGI that they pulled up have actually been implemented people are still investing in it. Just blows my mind how people cannot see the obvious bs evidence.
AKlover no no no no. 100-120k fuel; 100-150 passengers * 10-20 trips a day. First class Seattle to Beijing is 12k usd due to one trip at 12 hrs. This will be less.
Optimism and reality seldom match up. Keep in mid all of the shit the FAA will "Require" all of which will add weight, consume more, fuel, and remove passengers/cargo. Uncle sugar's "cut" on top of that. Crony politicians who will try to sandbag Musk to protect their campaign contributors and jobs in their district. If Musk got it down to 5K per seat I'd be impressed.
Ilon Mask is a fucking bullshit and an empty projector. A missile with 31 engines will explode earlier than it will fly to. the same nonsense as American flights to the moon.
Curiously, this animation seems to skip the most harrowing and dangerous part of the trip. The re-entry burn. You know.. the part where a giant spaceship full of human beings turns into a blowtorch? Hope those tiles stay glued on!
I love listening to this during takeoff: 0:00 Taxi to Runway and Hold 0:19 Engines throttle up 0:24 Full Power 0:35 V1 achieved 0:39 Rotation & Take off 0:55 Flight Gives me chills
Itd be awesome to live in america and have to take a rocket to china everytime you go to work. Actually now that i say that it sounds like a nightmare to keep up with the cost
people in the comments really think strapping people to an ICBM is the future of travel? really? even if this does come to fruition it’s not going to be earth to earth
They are going to use methalox, which you can get from earths atmosphere, so it will actually be carbon neutral. It uses methane and oxygen. And it has a max G force of 2.4 when it will make these round trips, and 3g when it is going on a trip around the moon for example. And lets say they can get that 150 metric tones and expand the habitat volume to 2,000 meters squared, in that case they can take 1,000 people, but if it is a suborbital trajectory then they can decrease the tank size on the ship and increase the habitat volume to 4,000 meters squared, then they can take 2,000 people. or potentialy more depending on how much the expand the payload fairing. And if the fuel and matinance cost 2 million per flight (and add on a extra million for profit margin) then each passenger would pay 1,500, and if they chose not to have a profit margin on a flight then each person would pay 1,000, which would actually be less than a flight half way around the world on a airplane. And if they can manufacture a starship for lets say 40,000,000-20,000,000 there profit margin would be minimal. And each flight would only last up to 50 minutes, compared to a plane which would take 51 hours to go half way around the world (including stops).
@@HarrisonAdAstra, yes that's nice and all, still haven't answered the stuff I was mainly talking about. 1. countries are not going to allow ICBMs to land anywhere near their major cities, not to mention the sheer amount of noise it would make. imagine the number of times it would be mistaken for an ICBM. hell, even planes get misidentified as ICBMs sometimes. 2. quite frankly, not many people are going to be using starship, most are probably going to go on it for the thrill. the need to travel halfway around the world is becoming less and less each year. 3. rockets get delayed. a lot. sometimes even up to multiple days. more so than airliners I doubt that starship would be used to transport people to other places on earth, maybe it would be used as a form of tourism, but E2E? no. or it's just going to be used in the military.
A few years ago we were skeptical about SpaceX landing a rocket. And then it happened. More recently we were skeptical that the Falcon Heavy would ever become a thing. And then it happened. And now we are skeptical about the BFR ever becoming a real rocket. Only time can tell what SpaceX has in store for the future of space exploration.
I'm not skeptical about the BFR flying, it will fly but maybe not Mars Missions till 2026-2028. I am skeptical about BFR Earth to Earth, because I damn right know it's economically impossible to do.
Spacex are absolutely killing it at the moment. They are currently running 4 programs. Commercial satellites, ISS Supply missions, DearMoon, Mars Program. So this would be a fifth venture for them. The beauty is they all use the same technology developed in-house by Spacex. This is an example of the power of vertical integration which Elon understands. Nasa spends $5 on space contracts for every $1 that Spacex spends. This is why Spacex is the only company that can deliver cost-effective space programs right now.
The 24hour-Starship-challenge : 6:00 AM running in Los Angeles, 9:00 AM breakfast in New York, 1:00 PM lunch in Paris, 4:00 PM snack in Bangkok, 7:00 PM dinner in Hong-Kong, 11:00 PM party on Sydney's beach, 3:00 AM last drink in Cape Town, 6:00 AM back in Los Angeles to sleep.
You have a 5% chance of dying in a single rocket trip. When was the last time you had a 5% chance of dying in a single trip traveling by car? Why is it even necessary to explain this?
@@goldenthroat8683 That's because at the moment there are only a few launches per year and if one fails, the percentage of fails increases drastically, but in the future there will be dozens of launches all over the world every day.
Ah yes, you suggest literally strapping people to intercontinental ballistic missiles as a form of transportation that would be literal torture for 30 minutes because of how much force there would be (3 Gs) and make a video that makes this seem like a super cool futuristic idea that is actually realistic. That doesn’t even mention the cost of the damn things. How innovative.
It goes at about the same speed as a falcon heavy rocket, and the acceleration on those things exceed 3 Gs, which would essentially be torture for whoever went on those things.
The side effects of that kind of force on a human body include a rise in blood pressure, muscle cramps, difficulty breathing, and just blacking out for normal healthy people, and people with underlying medical conditions might even die.
asdfasdfasdfasdism There's a stretch of marshy forest right on the border between North and South America that no one wants to build on because of the soft land, drug cartels, and wildlife protection agreements.
+nickinthecave But his company is the one making the electric car a mass market one. Tesla is the reason *every* car manufacturer is pushing electric. He had the balls and the brains to know it would be accepted as a product, when other manufacturers had 1 out of their 10 car designs as hybrid not even full electric. In 20 years this will be the other way around. And not because Mercedes, VW, Toyota , BMW, Ford, or any other big established well funded car company did the final push to all electric. They all smirked at Tesla when they started the company. VW managers would still praise Diesel.
I can completely see this actually happening one day. I want to one day say this: Oh mom, you're in Hong Kong? I'll be there in less then 2 hours!! From California!!!!
It will take 30 something minutes from Jakarta to Los Angeles. Meanwhile it takes 1 hour or so from my house to my school due to Jakarta's traffic. Better start looking for a school in different continent.
Well you still need transport to the boat in city traffic, then from the boat out to the launch platform Then repeat that trip once you arrived. So itll still be a 3 hour trip (1.5 hour on each end, getting through traffic to the boat terminal, boarding the boat and going out to the launch platform, boarding the rocket and waiting for countdown etc)
lmao love how all the people who replied are immediately doing the maths. unless you're a 1%er, travel like this is never ideal unless it's a career demand
Only thing what he done is returning stage 1 rockets to save some money yey, but... -It's overhype on matter travel to mars, what space exploration needs is space ship construction throwing away limitation of size limit of spaces, as well as moon colony for exact same reason. Ironically enough Russia are only one that thinking of doing so. -Electric cars would exist without him eitherway, but i guess pushing this market is good idea, still it freaking too expensive -He thinks that MagLev in vacuum tube gonna be more efficient way of transport then actual MagLev when countries don't even invest in that -Now he thinks people gonna love rocket takeoff over relaxation in the plane, guess 0 gravity for a moment can make up for it but i'm little sceptical over it. But this can work with cargo i can give him that.... but that what the whole point of returning stage 1 was about, but i guess land on land transportation is good idea too. So far i think Steve Jobs (or should a say Apple) impacted world more then Elon Musk did so far.... I would say there more companies that are way powerful or alteast impacful to our realities then him like social media companies, i really don't understand why there so hype over him. My best guess is some group of interest wants to make him president of US
How many middle class people you think could afford such a trip. Unless tickets are less than 300 dollars most people will still use regular airplanes.
This is never going to happen. This is just one of Elon's many cons to boost TSLA stock and his ego preying on the gullible and ignorant (the general public.)
Okay first, this does NOT prove the earth is round. Remember that what your seeing is just a cgi video. They didn't even build it. And if you realize traveling around a globe takes a long time. So it doesn't prove anything
These are essentially planes that go in space and are really fast. You can't order pizza to be delivered on a commercial plane. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that can't happen anytime soon.
But soon after this VTOL technologically *takes off* (pun intended) it will be used for more than just commercial transportation. If you can order fresh Japanese Strawberries at the Burj Al Arab in Dubai I'm sure this BFR could deliver fast-food. And if not I could always just go to New York and order food from there directly which is still a win. XD
Jackson, that launchpad looks to be less than a kilometre from the shoreline. I think we have the patience to survive such a **long** (sarcasm) journey.
@@fayereaganlover international waters are still quite far away from a countries coast. Also, it is a myth that there are no laws in international waters
First passengers are Billionaires and millionaires. 50 successful flights later, it will be in the $100,000-$50,000 range, then 50 successful flights later, it will be ~$1000 per flight.
They can throttle down the engines to reduce g-forces. Blue Origin passengers can withstand the g-forces of acceleration and deceleration, but that’s suborbital.
Just the 50km boat trip to the middle of the ocean would already almost an hour, and another one at the other end. 6 years after this announcement and 0 people have ever flown in a Starship. What is the payload for the starship? How many people fit inside of it? How much fuel will it consume? How long would it take to refuel? How long would it take to make sure the aircraft is suitable for another flight? The most basic questions still have no plausible answer. Until now starship has a few impressive unplanned explosions.
I think, this Thursday, the plan to blow up the next Starship.. Of all of Musk's fever dreams, this must have been the most bizarre one. But just how gullible must all those investors be who throw all their money at him?
Tech Showdown Tbh I don't agree. Concord was a problem because its sonic boom covers wherever it flies over, so it could only fly supersonic over uninhabited areas. But space vihecles only create loud noises at two points: launch site and landing site but not anywhere inbetween. So as long as those sites are well chosen I don't think there's going to be many noise complaints
A ship will take the passengers to a launchpad away from the cities into the sea. I doubt noise will be an issue. Plus, I think people would be astounded by the fact a rocket is launching daily and they get to witness it.
Angi 196 guess what? The first commercial airlines were only used by rich people. Cars were first used by rich people, even phones were first used by rich people. Any transportation either on land, air, rail and water (titanic for example, anyone can go on any cruise ship they wish now) were used by rich people. So in the near future, this transportation will be cheap enough for every working man or woman, and replace long distance travel. Yes the rich will enjoy this for now like any other time they have in history.
Be driven in a self driving Tesla to the ‘airport’, then take a Hyperloop train to the launchpad, fly in this thing by SpaceX and reach half way around the world in less than an hour, land and all this while still have data to Gram the whole experience while connected to Starlink Constellation while deliberating whether to get a Neuralink implant. What a crazy world we could be living in in the not so distant future.
@@fariselsherif1601 Both Hyperloop and this interplanetary rocket transportation are technically feasible, but would be ridiculously expensive, dangerous and pointless. The Hyperloop requires a very long vaccum chamber that could be put out of service by a rifle shot at it anywhere in its track. The mass of air getting into it at the speed of sound would destroy any of the pods. The Hyperloop has been criticized by the experts for being extremely dangerous.
So what are you doing today? *[Me in Sydney]* Well, I got the afternoon off and its Independence Day in America So I might go grab a few drinks and celebrate with the Yanks for a few hours. Dont worry Ill be back in time for you're birthday dinner, mate!
Buy a bicycle and if you manage to get 20km/h average you would be there in 15 minutes. 15km/h average (more easily doable) would get you there in 20 minutes.
@@Adreno23421 yeah . But I first walk to a bus station which takes about 15 minutes then I wait for 10minutes and then the bus takes 15 minutes to reach the school . 😁
As much as I've always loved the concept of suborbital trajectories for travelling long distances the reality is that a rocket able to do this is functionally identical to a rocket designed as an ICBM, there's too much trust involved for this to have an easy path to reality. Also, I'm guessing he's wanting to fuel these using solar power driven Methane/LOX manufacturing facilities. Good luck!
Well normal jet planes can be used as missiles too, and can also be packed with bombs... yet thousands of them fly every day without incident. This will require the same security checks as normal airports.
Your comment is basically just reinforcing the fact, that this is all still largely unproven technology, in regards to safety and reliability. 16 successful rocket landings vs however many hundreds of thousands of successful commercial aircraft landings their has been in the last 50years or so. I want all this to work as much as you. But you still need to keep one foot grounded in reality.
@Sam Mousa the future is here in 20 years...15 absolute minimum. 16 landings (even if they had no accidents) would be very very far from proving they have the safety of commercial aircraft. Also they're talking about doing this with a rocket they haven't even finished building yet! (Though they've made good progress). Also, Cad Malz, the difference between a rocket engine and a plane engine is very significant in terms of explosive potential.
