Posted on 03/19/2019 11:54:10 PM PDT by LibWhacker
There's only one company there doing anything of note, and they're not doing super high flights using oxygen-breathing engines.
Once super fast for flights over five hours becomes cost feasible then hell yeah
I flew the concord several times.....crammed in but fast no question
But it was like Mercedes sponsoring F1
No money in it
Prestige
If you accelerate at 1g it takes less than a year to get to the speed of light (almost to the speed of light, you can't ever actually get to light speed). So, that would take 4 years to speed up and slow down coming and going, plus the additional time traveling at the speed of light to cover the distance, but minus the slow down in time that you experience when close to the speed of light. Perhaps the 7 years figure the poster cited came from a calculation of this sort. At any rate, time on the earth will not slow down and everyone here would be much more than 7 years older when you get back.
Now all we have to do is invent a spaceship that can get to 99+% of light speed.
Better hurry..... the Greenies say we're toast in around 12.
Nope, the other way around. Ignoring for the moment the time required to accelerate and decelerate, the 7 year round trip is in Earth's time frame reference.
The passenger on board the space craft will experience less than 7 years travel time. How much less depends solely on how close to C the rocket travels.
Earth cannot experience more than 7 years of time passage.
The reuse of a passenger rocket liner after a day or two for servicing will be crucial if such flights are to be routine and capable of supporting an airline business model. Space-X aims for a same day reuse capability for its Falcon boosters, so they seem on course to meet the technical challenge of reliable, reusable rocket engines. I am not so sure that it can be done at an affordable price and bearable g stress on the passengers. After all, those who can afford super pricey tickets tend to be in their fifties or sixties.
Oh, come on! Where's the [/just kidding] tag?
Doesn't it take some time to get to 'outer space' in the first place? I mean, it's not like you get picked-up at the curb and hop on a bus to get there to connect with your rocket...
I admit to not reading very far into the article, but this seems so ridiculous that I just couldn't get interested...
Hmmmmm... I wouldn't think that suborbital = "outer space", but this, at least, sounds somewhat plausible...
I agree, there’s definitely a market there for top-end travelers. While a Business Class or First Class seat might be nice relative to coach, you’re still losing pretty much a whole day in each direction of travel...and you’re still cooped up in an airplane.
The size of the market will, of course, be determined by the cost. The fuel cost alone for this type of travel is probably 10 times that of air travel, and almost totally depends on weight, so there will be some interesting ramifications. For starters, I’d expect a flat fee, say $5000 for the first 110 lbs. (50 kilograms), and then maybe $100 per kg after that.
So given that type of pricing, what people ultimately pay will be determined by their overall weight impact to the rocket, meaning their body weight and the weight of their clothes and personal effects. It also means that people may opt to send their luggage on regular air freight service, and may even try Keto before flying to save a few thousand.
But things will sure be interesting if they do attempt a pricing structure as above...
Thank you!
Things like this are what make my head hurt when anybody starts talking about light-speed travel. Sure, open space is 'vast', but it's not completely empty. It seems like there'd be plenty of opportunity to run into something.
You're not exactly looking out the windscreen, steering clear of obstacles at that speed...
Fifty years? Maybe.Ten years? No way!
What about radiation exposure? You get mild exposure when you fly at typical aircraft heights but obviously this will much higher. Any thoughts about this?
I did a paradigm shift a few years ago, regarding interstellar travel. That is, all interstellar trips would be, for all intents and purposes, one way trips.
That’s assuming we don’t figure out some faster than light, space folding, warp drive or other methodology for making it a quick trip.
Aerospace engineer here and there are some real problems which this article doesn’t address.
Unless a new propulsion system is found that makes use of combined cycles (A subsonic air breather, supersonic air breather, hypersonic air breather and a hypersonic closed cycle.) that is cost effective, the British may have one with the SABER, there is no way this will be economical nor meet the noise requirements at your local airport.
And I don’t see anyone poring money into a vertical launch service at your local airport either. Are you really going to pay $200,000 for a one way ticket between New York and Tokyo?
And what would Star Trek transporters do?
We vacation in the Philippines about once every 3 - 5 years.
I thought about that as a regular travel rt.
We leave someplace in Florida at a rocket angle of some computered degree and just glide back down into Manila.
It would sure beat the three planes we presently take from Pittsburgh and the 23 hr flight time !
BUT .... OUR money is only good for two every 3 -5 years ..... THAT'S no way to plan an expensive business venture.
So WHO would benefit and USE that style of travel ?
Are there REALLY that many global travelers all year long to justify this venture.
I personally don't think so.
I'm jealous !
Kill you then assemble a copy of you on the other end.
Just another costly difficulty this article doesn’t address. My thoughts? The author is way too optimistic.
A businessman needing to be there to sort out a problem before a billion dollar deal fails? Sure. Regular people on vacation? No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.