Support NeoGAF

[L0wMax]

This is a fascinating idea that I think warrants a discussion.


My first thought is that of the environment and the fuel efficiency of rockets. Would a rocket use less energy than a plane traveling the same distance? Would it emit less carbon than a plane? A rocket could exit the atmosphere and have no air resistance for a portion of a flight and it would get there much faster, so it's kinda up in the air imo. I suppose it would have to be at least as efficient in order to compete with airline prices.

Would commuters be willing to strap themselves atop a ballistic missile?

 

[Pagusas]

What type of gforces are we talking for takeoff? I cant image consumers putting up with it if its severe.

 

[Mihos]

What type of gforces are we talking for takeoff? I cant image consumers putting up with it if its severe.

The video says 2 to 3 and covers who that omits


This would be used for cargo long before any people are put on them.

 

[strange headache]

As the video already explained, I highly doubt this will be possible with current conventional means. Rockets are basically controlled explosions, highly expensive and rather dangerous.

Firstly even the best rockets have a lousy track record compared to planes. If only one rocket in a hundred blows up it's considered VERY good. Meanwhile if one plane in a million crashes, it's considered a poor safety record. Secondly rockets are mind blowingly expensive. You can get an estimate of a ticket on a rocket like this as somewhere between 100 000- 500 000 USD. Its difficult to see that ever being competitive with plane flight which will cost ~1000 USD.

 

[DiscoJer]

No.

Planes are cheap and very safe. Rockets are very expensive and relatively safe, not nearly as safe as planes.

 

[TheShadowLord]

Well, there is Virgin Galactic from Richard Branson and that is basically an airplane with a rocket engine on it. So no. Doesn't matter though because none of us would be able to afford traveling in one of these. Same with the return of these supersonic airplanes.

 

[llien]

Even setting aside safety issues, there are two problems with no way to overcome:

1) acceleration is quite harsh to bear for an untrained person, if you do it slowly, it takes longer and takes even more fuel
2) rockets are much more wasteful (fuel costs)


An interesting fact: if we could dig long straight tunnel from any point a to any point b on earth surface (doesn't matter where they would be) and be able to keep pressure inside those tunnel very low, close to vacuum, we could travel with close to zero energy costs from anywhere on the planet to anywhere on the planet within about 43 minutes (time would not depend on the distance) pushed purely by the gravity force.

 

[L0wMax]

Even setting aside safety issues, there are two problems with no way to overcome:

1) acceleration is quite harsh to bear for an untrained person, if you do it slowly, it takes longer and takes even more fuel
2) rockets are much more wasteful (fuel costs)


An interesting fact: if we could dig long straight tunnel from any point a to any point b on earth surface (doesn't matter where they would be) and be able to keep pressure inside those tunnel very low, close to vacuum, we could travel with close to zero energy costs from anywhere on the planet to anywhere on the planet within about 43 minutes (time would not depend on the distance) pushed purely by the gravity force.

Not to mention the magma and solid iron core you'd need to build a tunnel through.

 

[llien]

Not to mention the magma and solid iron core you'd need to build a tunnel through.

Well, yes, but you don't need to go so deep for a tunnel from east to west US coast, for instance.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

A launch loop would be much more economical on a long-term scale, safer, and actually feasable with technology off the shelf today.

 

[Makariel]

Rockets are unsafe at any speed based on current technology, so I'd say no.

Supersonic airliners are likely to make a return for the super rich, but for large numbers of passengers over very long distances, nothing beats regular commercial airliners at the moment.

 

[Aintitcool]

If you want to park your car near a port, take a boat far off (1-2 hours), Get onboard(probably 1- 2 hours), than launch at amazing speed(40 minute for long distance flights london, new york example), land safely on a sea platform(Not easy considering size of rocket), wait for a boat again(1-2 hours), and than be at a major city, but only ones near the ocean.

It's not going to happen. Airports are already more efficient. Using boats to put passengers on something that is to loud to be launched near cities is just not going to be a means of transportation for anything less than near earth orbit or space.

 

[womfalcs3]

Concorde failed not because of technical deficiencies, but for economic reasons. It was using too much fuel. We have the technical abilities to get your from A to B fast, but it's too costly for a commercial firm.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

This is a fascinating idea that I think warrants a discussion.


My first thought is that of the environment and the fuel efficiency of rockets. Would a rocket use less energy than a plane traveling the same distance? Would it emit less carbon than a plane? A rocket could exit the atmosphere and have no air resistance for a portion of a flight and it would get there much faster, so it's kinda up in the air imo. I suppose it would have to be at least as efficient in order to compete with airline prices.

Would commuters be willing to strap themselves atop a ballistic missile?

A launcher like a Delta 2 has a predicted orbital success rate of 98% (based on prior performance), as does the Soyuz-FG. A SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.2 comes in at about 90%. Although those are among the highest predicted success rates, of the 49 or so launch vehicles in active use today, only 16 actually fall below the 75% level for this measure - and these are running into small-number statistics. -scientificamerican

Between 1 in 50 to 1 in 10 odds of dying. If you're a frequent flyer you won't live long. That's basically about on par with the odds of getting the lowest lotto or powerball prizes, and people can get several of those prizes per year playing once a week.

Honestly I'd say it borders on unethical to send humans out in them. Imagine you were going to start some research on earth with such odds of killing the participants, would it be approved? The millionaires paying for such trips are paying to play russian roulette.