Future of Under One Hour Travel Between Major World Cities

SpaceX will bring point to point travel between major world cities starting near the end of the 2020s if they can increase the safety. It will more likely become significant around 2035-2045.

The first spaceports would be in New York, London, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Dubai, Singapore, Shanghai and Beijing.

This would be followed by Bangkok, Hong Kong, Paris, Dehli, Seoul, Honolulu, Melbourne and Sidney.

Traveling in less than one hour between major cities will start with key routes from New York to London, Los Angeles to Shanghai, Los Angeles to Singapore, New York to Tokyo and Tokyo to London. They would likely want to start with long-haul routes over oceans. This would avoid the risk of rockets crashing onto land.

The current busiest long-haul air routes would be where there would be the demand for spaceports. Asia will continue to see the highest air travel growth.

In 2019, there are 38 megacities in the world (urban areas over 10 million population), up from 37 last year. A total of 87 urban areas are indicated with 5,000,000 or more population, up from 86 last year.

In 2025, there will be about 41 megacities in the world and there will be 12 in China and six in India. Megacities are cities with populations over 10 million. Greater London has a population of 8.9 million now and the San Francisco Bay has a population of 7.8 million. Greater London should have a population over 10 million by 2030. Dubai has a population of 2.8 million.

By 2030, 10 percent of the global population and 16 percent of the world’s GDP will come from megacities. Jakarta is on track to overtake Tokyo, currently the world’s most populous city, and many African and East Asian will continue to see massive population growth.

Megaregions grouping increase the GDP share to these major areas to about 30% of World GDP. By the 2050’s and 2100s, the megaregions will be over 50% of world GDP.

Spaceports connecting megacities with less than one hour travel will further increase the dominance of megacities. Robotic greenhouses and synthetic biology food production (using beer fermentation of cells) will reduce the need for rural farms and make urban areas more self-sufficient.

There are about 655 million people in megacities now out of 7.7 billion (8.4% mega-urban).
There will be almost 850 million in megacities in 2030 out of 8.5 billion (10% mega-urban).
There will be almost 1.4 billion in megacities in 2050 out of 10 billion (14% mega-urban).
There will be about 1.8 billion in megacities in 2075 out of 11 billion (17% mega-urban).
There will be about 2.8 billion in megacities in 2100 out of 12 billion (23% mega-urban).
Around 2150, the world should be over 50% mega-urban. This will be over 7 billion in megacities.

SOURCES- Demographia, SpaceX, WeForum
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

62 thoughts on “Future of Under One Hour Travel Between Major World Cities”

  1. I am not sure about that. I take flights from NYC to Ft. Lauderdale. And the there aren’t that many first class seat compared to regular passenger seat where even if the cost is three times as much would earn Jet Blue that much.

    Reply
  2. How would you feel about the neighbor in front of you, behind you, next to you on both sides … chucking their walnuts too? Exit to Big Smiles of a Great Ride?

    Think again.  

    What if you were in a top-shelf business suit?  

    I guess everyone would have to don bunnysuits. Bunnysuits and face-masks with auto-vac ejecta sluicing.  Or maybe during the count-down, they just fill the cabin with a high dose of laughing gas. Or your face-mask, a weight-and-physique metered out dose. A blast of pure oxygen at the end cures that almost frighteningly quick.  

    I know, had a tooth removed that way. Big ol’ molar, cracked in half down the middle. Your mother’s advice about not chewing ice cubes … would have been better taken than ignored.  

    Anyway. Yah. I love roller coasters too. But this clearly isn’t on the order of personal flight convenience as say, a 787 Dreamliner or a 747 all decked out. Pack you in like sardines, and whoosh, you go.  

    Just Saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  3. LOL… Sure, its gotta be that simple, right? Buy your tickets early and often!

    It is 20 miles (30 km or so) from SFO to San Francisco.  Indeed, the problem is that there are a LOT of people in those intervening 30 km. So, while San Francisco might be spared the brunt of the noise, all those communes between do not. OK, so can’t be THAT 30 km.  

    Let’s see … 30 km north, Marin County. Lots of noise-abatement radicals up there. Save a tree, eat a beaver types. So, not north.  

    Mmmm… East? No, East Bay. For almost 60 km. Nope.  

    Only way left is West.  
    Out into the ocean!
    Hey, that works!

    After all, they’ve landing the things on barges, so take off from barges, too! Come cruising out on a huge catamaran, hop off, load up, and zoom.  Could be further than 30 km, too.  

    Point tho’ is that with near certainty, many of the flights will come zooming right back, since they almost kind-of have to have straight, energy conserving trajectories. And they wouldn’t be 30 km UP, if you know what I mean. Maybe only 10 km. It takes awhile to develop altitude speed.  

    As you say, who knows… maybe the only thing the ‘pilot’ has to do is turn on the big green switch to say “we’re loaded and ready to rock!”.  A stewardess could do that.  

    Just Saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  4. WAKE UP!

    starship & superheavy will be able to launch in rougher weather than previous rockets due to it’s lower height to width ratio. (it’s less pencil like and thus harder to break from wind sheer)

    Reply
  5. I love roller coasters and I’d prefer puking my guts out during a few minutes of zero/micro G over 12+ hour flights in an aircraft, overseas flights are grueling.

    Reply
  6. musk said, spaceport will located 30km from the city at the sea, because of the noise

    Are pilots necessary? It’s more like a roller coaster ride, than a airplane flight.
    Everything will be remotely operated and/or computer controlled

    Reply
  7. I meant what I wrote.

    I don’t know his tactics, but his strategy in everything he does appears unchanging: all the pieces he plays with are for his Mars dream. How the suborbital BFR fits into his Mars strategy is beyond me.

    Reply
  8. Supersonics are the best thing that is happening now in the field of air travel. The best thing that is not happening in that field is airships. It is about time for them too. Travel at about 150kph means Shanghai to Sydney flight (8000km) in 2.5 days – in style, at much lower altitude, with great views, decent accomodation, etc. Or a 3600km flight in 24 hours – overnight with some pleasure time before and after a good night sleep.

    Reply
  9. They could build up the infrastructure one spaceport at a time. It’ll still cost a bunch, but it’s not like they need a whole network all at once. Fly a single route first. If it proves viable, add another spaceport. Then another. Each new spaceport potentially adds more than one possible route (depending on trajectory restrictions).

    Reply
  10. The bicycles, aeroplanes and motorcycles all have a huge advantage over suborbital transport.

    They can be done on a tiny, one man even, scale. They can be partially done. They only need to work a tiny bit on a shoestring budget. And then they can be scaled up from there.

    High speed automobiles are a bit different because for any practical purposes you also need a high speed road network to get any use out of them. Now you’ve got a chicken and egg problem, and a collective action problem.

    Fortunately it’s somewhat flexible. Your existing systems (carriages and bicycles) have an existing road network. The automobile can push the limits on what speeds are feasible, the roads are improved, the automobiles are improved, and over a span of several decades the high speed automobile and road network can co-evolve.

    The suborbital flight system has the problem that, as anticipated here, you need a whole bunch ($billions) of infrastructure and international cooperation to get the first flight going.

    Now if someone came up with a unilateral suborbital application (troop dropships?) then it might get off the ground.

    Reply
  11. Realistically, few if any of the punters would have windows – too heavy, too risky. So a virtual reality sub-orbital flight would have a better view, cost far less, and have a way lower fatality rate.

    Reply
  12. Yes, and one cannot even go in the opposite direction, as it still lands in a sensitive area. By the way, Putin has mentioned that China is getting his help with building its own early warning system. That means China will have it on duty in a few years, and then switch doctrine to launch on warning. They did not build all that infrastructure and wealth over 30 years to have it blown up with impunity by some snoflake in the disturbingly near future. Hence BFR people will suddenly find the high-speed high-altitude corner of the possibility space quite densly occupied by people who are under orders to keep that corner clear. China already has interceptors reaching up to GEO, and they will buy S-500 as soon as it is ready (they always are one of the first buyers).

    Reply
  13. Most people do not fly business of first class, and yet those few who do make most of airlines profit. The real economics is mostly counter-intuitive.

    Reply
  14. To be pedant, airships then had no altitude control where it matters most: near ground. Or any control at low speed. Any gust of wind (and everyone enjoys videos of windshear landings) breaks the fragile structure against the ground. Since then, airships acquired omnidirectional control by thrusters, vacuum landing pads, thermal buoyancy control, not to mention computer control of everything. Optionally they can have hydrogen balloonettes inside main helium tank to improve buoyancy with good separation of hydrogen from atmosphere. And they actually do fly, but only at the very fringe of the industry. Why no airship line from Beijing to Sydney for Chinese tourists? Or Sydney to Whitsundays for Australians? Because one cannot simply reverse complete abandonment by presenting existing solutions to bygone problems. Logic does not govern such decisions, at least not in this era. Airships were created by people with.. you know.. by men. BFR is also being created by men, but they will not be allowed (or willing, when talked to) to blow up the planet for the sake of their business case.

    Reply
  15. I was kind of thinking about the “preparing to land” part of the trip. De-orbiting. Timing to within a critical handful of seconds when to shoot off the deceleration Roman Candles. And, once having done that, still almost completely following a predetermined ballistic-while-slowing-down path.  

    Maybe I worry too much. Things have a way of becoming lethal when you’re still doing better-than-Mach–2 on that bright streaky path to the landing pad.  

    And I didn’t even say those fighting words … “sonic boom”.  

    Just Saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  16. Yes, you can. 

    Bicycles shouldn’t stay up. But centripetal force along with the quick-response front steering wheel makes them stable whilst underway. What else could they perhaps be incapable of? … hmmm … flight … submarine … surface boating … can opener … toothbrush … television service … WiFi router.  OK, bicycles must be impossible.  Sheesh…

    You could take the same approach of “real analysis” for the other things you mentioned. You could, for just about every one of the hundreds-to-thousands of rather amazing things that we DO HAVE today, that might otherwise seem somewhat improbable.  

    Thing is, by actually listing the things WRONG with the rah-rah-lets-go-around-the-world plan, well … it puts it in perspective. Many a not-quite-yet-released technology has been balleyhooed as being the greatest thing since Sliced Bread. Then turn(s/ed) out not to be.  Funny thing, that. 

    Just Saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  17. Can’t speculate on your “micro-ice crystals” hypothesis unless i find a paper that addresses such a pathway. Isn’t that how snow forms, ice crystals coalescing on some dust particle until it gets too large?

    The temp constraint applies only to vapor phase and is unrelated to time. Increase the temp and water vapor increases, increase water vapor and the temp increases.
    Water vapor by itself isn’t a problem unless you have another independent factor pushing up the temps.

    One of those “magical” feedback mechanisms you don’t care for, “The strongest climate feedback is the tropospheric water vapor feedback (1, 2). The troposphere is the bottom 10–15 km of the atmosphere, and there are physical reasons to expect it to become moister as the surface warms (3)—and, indeed, both observations (4⇓–6) and climate models (7, 8) verify this. Because water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, tropospheric moistening more than doubles the direct warming from carbon dioxide.

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1310344110

    Reply
  18. I could be convinced that such a market could be developed once it became available.

    I could also be convinced that it would not. My point is that it isn’t obviously a wrong idea.

    Right now, of course, there is no demand, but that’s because nobody is even thinking about that. What was the demand for Russian Dashcam videos of car crashes in 1990? What was the demand for world wide distribution of humorous cat videos in 1967?

    As a wild speculation: What about restaurants serving Tasmanian Lobster guaranteed caught fresh within the hour?

    Reply
  19. I mostly agree, but I’ll be a pedant and point out that airships were abandoned not because of the Hindenburg disaster, but because of the Hindenburg, and the R101, and the … just go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

    Airships had a LOT of disasters. PRobably a lot less than aeroplanes, but aeroplanes (at the time) were tiny and cheap and only had a couple of men on board, while an airship was (as the name implies) like a ship. Losing a ship was headlines and revising the defense budget etc. It just wasn’t sustainable.

    Reply
  20. #7 is a bit unclear to me.

    Which errant things, in particular, do modern airliners dodge?

    The only example I can think of is very bad weather, which the suborbital will go over the top of.

    Reply
  21. We can make similar will-not-happen lists for bicycles, motorcycles, high-speed automobiles and aeroplanes. The future will happen and it will be different from the present.

    Reply
  22. I’ve not googled to see if anyone has done the math, but rather than flying from New York to London or Paris on a Concord, is there a market for overnight “sleeper” airships? Particularly if you have cabins and are not as cramped as an airplane?

    Reply
  23. And let’s not start with subjecting your well paying costumers to high gees. They are not astronauts, they may not be very well physically fit, and they don’t train for high-g launches.

    Reply
  24. Not so much legally, but ASAT capability has been a non-trivial exercise. With the spread of commercial rocket technology, that will no longer be the case. So if Podunkistan doesn’t want a rocket or satellite over their landmass, they will have the capability to do something about it.

    Reply
  25. USSR had FOBS (called R-36orb) on combat duty from 1968 till 1983. They were withdrawn by treaty (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks 2, 1979), which imposed limitations on space weapons. A treaty in the middle of cold war had one purpose: to keep the cold war cold. That is what “too dangerous even in the 80’s” means. The treaty explicitly prohibited FOBS: “Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy: (…) (c) systems for placing into Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, including fractional orbital missiles“. You may read it yourself.
    fas.org/nuke/control/salt2/text/salt2-2.htm

    Apparently you are missing the point. No one will care what SpaceX thinks about the legal basis of BFR overflights over Russian or Chinese territory, or US for that matter in equal measure. This will be considered a strategic threat, and should profuse warnings and diplomatic efforts fail to deliver the point, they will shoot it down and simultaneously put strategic forces in DEFCON2. As US government will perfectly understand those concerns, they will not allow SpaceX to fly over the mentioned countries, or launch from any location at sea that may be considered a SLBM launch area by such countries. The US government will not be willing to suddenly find itself exchanging nuclear strikes based on third party stupidity. It is a stated Russian doctrine to launch on warning. If EW says “incoming”, S-500 will take BFR down. Should that fail, it’s DEFCON1.

    Reply
  26. US to China is very prominent on the list. I’m curious about whether China will go all in on Elon Musk projects other than Tesla like Starship and Starlink. Will they clear Starlink as an ISP in China assuming it cooperates with the Great Firewall rules? China else shipyards would be competitive for Starship Spaceport construction contracts. Starlink would benefit connecting rural China.

    While China would ultimately want to replicate and compete with Starship/Starlink that ambition isn’t better served by pushing it away rather than embracing it. A situation where China fully cooperates with SpaceX makes that easier. Building iPhone in China made Chinese smartphone industry stronger while making Apple stronger.

    Reply
  27. Not sure what you mean by FOBS which were possible and discussed in the early 1960’s being being “too dangerous even in the 80’s”. They were never prohibited being simply a trajectory that’s otherwise an orbit. There is no treaty or international law that prohibits SpaceX from launching Starship into an orbit and then deorbiting before it completes one. There’s no basis to distinguish overflying territory on that basis from any other spacecraft in orbit.

    Reply
  28. #1 is proposed to be solved by putting launch sites 30mi off shore. The picture is just an artist’s conception.

    #3 – actually, they might as well clamp big wings and jet engines on it, letting it land at conventional airports, then later fly to a launch island.

    #6 isn’t a lot different than what’d happen if a jet suddenly lost pressure at high altitude and the pilots blacked out – and is probably equally unlikely to happen.

    (Or do jets have an auto-pilot feature that automatically and rapidly drops it to low altitude if pressure is lost and the pilot doesn’t respond? Maybe they should, if not?)

    #7 also sounds unlikely…did you have something in particular in mind? Missiles? Those can hit commercial jets pretty easy too.

    But yeah, this isn’t going to happen – not enough passengers at any viable price point.

    Reply
  29. Cargo can fly. But if the usual applies, and intercontinentally delivered cargo sits over the weekend at customs, then is “delivered” over 15km in oh just 2 or 3 days, that destroys the idea completely. If rocket cargo comes, it will have to be after complete automation of local logistics, as in “within 30 minutes from landing to signature” (that is what Amazon wants). That would make a two-hour door-to-door intercontinental delivery, and DHL will want it.

    Reply
  30. I don’t think think this will ever happen, so travel time is kind of moot – though 8 hours is still a lot better than >1 day with conventional jets.

    But a fun bit of info: Elon recently tweeted to the effect that one might take a hyperloop ride out to the SpaceX launch island. If it’s 50km out and you averaged 500km/h that’d be around a 6 minute ride. The cost of that trip would be astronomical, given the low volume of traffic to the SpaceX launch islands.

    Reply
  31. A suborbital vehicle does not “stay”. A satellite stays, though at 100km it is one orbit or less. FOBS (fractional-orbit bombardment systems) were too dangerous even in the 80’s, at the height of cold war tensions. A one-hour BFR turns into FOBS by a little change in trajectory, it does not even need a warhead.

    When the question is about the constant possibility of a decapitating strike, the questions of land rights become nonsensical. Remember Carribean crisis? USA put missiles in UK, Italy and Turkey; USSR responded with missiles in Cuba; nuclear war was literally one man away (one man voted no). No one wants that to happen again.

    Reply
  32. Tokyo-London or in reverse is not going to fly. That trajectory will be indistinguishable from SLBM launch at Russia. They can still do it if BFR goes into fractional orbit over Antrarctica, and still be at destination within one hour. But a huge missile flying all over will not be accepted for security reasons: it is a perfect covert first strike delivery vehicle. Fractional orbital vehicles (FOBS) existed but were not developed further, as they are a huge threat, essentially a space weapon that is too dangerous even by cold war standards. No chance a USA-controlled BFR would be allowed to land anywhere near Moscow or Beijing. I also doubt USA will take it lightly if such flights go to NY, which is too close to DC, for similar reasons as Russia and China. That leaves only “harmless” places such as Singapore and Dubai, perhaps London (if still relevant then) and Sydney. But if someone wants to short Singapore stocks badly enough to drop a BFR on Singapore, there is no better way to make a few unethical billions in an instant. Does Singapore want BFR that much? Perhaps an airliner is good enough under those circumstances. Planes were used as weapons, will be used again. Missiles were created as weapons, were used as weapons, are used as weapons, and most certainly will be used as weapons. BFR will be used as a weapon, by someone, one day, and that will be the end of the one-hour story. Airships were completely abandoned for causing much less damage – once, accidentally.

    Reply
  33. This gives away the game right here: “They would likely want to start with long-haul routes over oceans. This would avoid the risk of rockets crashing onto land.”
    ROTFLOL. Are you kidding? Can you imagine any spaceport (or airport) being built with the stated position that some of the eventual rockets landing there will crash?! Yeah, where’s my ticket…to heaven.
    Ideally, the rockets should land in the middle of town, or all that short-time flight efficiency is lost just getting to and from the spaceport.
    But of course this will never happen for all the reasons GoatGuy lists.
    If God had meant Man to fly by rocket, he have given him built-in barf bags.
    A better bet would be supersonic jets, just around the corner, and without the old sonic boom too.
    https://boomsupersonic.com/

    Reply
  34. “Bet you’d like to complain about me slinging ICMBs directly over your capital, well tough luck pal they’re actually 105 km above your territory so if you complained the global community would laugh in your face”

    Reply
  35. Yeah, to each its own.

    I concur with GG’s objections above and think this is really not meant for point to point travel on Earth.

    Reply
  36. Don’t forget that there is no 1 hr trip.

    30 minutes travel from your actual location to high speed train station
    1 hour high speed train (if available) to travel to a launch pad far away from the city.
    3 hours to check in, check luggage, and go through 5 different types of security and emigration inspections.
    1 hour travel time.
    1 hour immigration, collect baggage and customs check.
    1 hour travelling to the city assuming high speed train.
    30 minutes from train station to actual destination

    So that’s a full 8 hour day assuming that there is no hold up or waiting at any point. And I’ve assuming rapid ground transport systems that mesh with the rocket itself.

    Reply
  37. Travel by luxury ocean liner is still available and surprisingly popular. But it is far more expensive than air, especially if you are supposed to be working for a living.

    Reply
  38. Self limiting with what time scale? If the water will freeze out of the vapour phase, and those micro-ice crystals will settle to lower altitudes in a week, then there shouldn’t be a problem.

    But if those micro ice crystals take a year to settle out then we might see some serious long term effects.

    Of course the next question is “what effects?” . Maybe it reflects the sun’s rays and reverses global warming?

    Reply
  39. If every time your LA to Seoul flight takes off you have to clear it with the Chinese nuclear warning system, and they veto it every time President Alex Jones sends a mean tweet, you have a problem.

    Reply
  40. The atmosphere is self-limiting in terms of water vapor at a given temp, it is constrained by temp. The only way to get the atmosphere to hold more water vapor is to heat it up. You could always lower water vapor by eliminating the largest source of evapotranspiration to compensate.

    Reply
  41. I have no reason to go half way across the world in less than a day. And most people don’t. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take a Starship flight. I would just to see the world from suborbit. That would be worth a few grands.

    Reply
  42. I thought if you stay above 100km no nation can legally complain as you are out of their airspace? Means a less ballistic hop if you need to stay out of the 100km zone of a country that is neighboring your landing site though.

    Reply
  43. [n + 1]

    Certain ballistic routes are strictly forbidden because there are whole nations that will never let you fly a ballistic missile over their airspace.

    Reply
  44. And I forgot the Big Cheeseburger of them all!

    [99] POLLUTION

    I’m trying to imagine how Earth’s stratosphere is going to handle 300+ BFR’s per day belching out the contents of their fuel tanks in, thru, and beyond the stratosphere. What’s each one going to weigh?  1,400 tons sez Wikipedia. 

    That’s about 500,000 tons a day of burned space fuel. Maybe ½ of it in-and-above the stratosphere. Wow … every day. 100,000,000 tons a year. Just wow… 

    I wonder what would it do to weather and climate?

    There is very, very, very little water vapor in-and-above the stratosphere at present. That’d change quick.  

    50% of 100,000,000,000 kg of H₂O spread out over the Earth’s surface (A = 4πr² = 500,000,000 km²) is about 2,000 kg per square kilometer, or 2 grams per square meter. 

    Doesn’t sound like much.  Except when you figure that the precipitable water in the stratosphere is approximately 0.01 mm/m² … = 0.01 mm × 1,000² mm = 10,000 mm³ × 10⁻³ g/mm³ = 10 mm … of potential precipitation per m². Or roughly 1,000 times what naturally is in the stratosphere.  

    Oh, sure.
    That’ll just go away.

    NOT
    ________________________________________
    Just Saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  45. I have been on a few 45min flights between Adelaide and Melbourne… the amount of people who use the toilets even on this short flight… really wonder how that will work in a ballistic missile? Also the time between toilet stops would be longer then 1 hr due to having to get on and off the rocket etc? Would be a fun flight though 🙂 It’s probably better then most of the space tourist options from their competitors?

    Reply
  46. And I didn’t talk about …

    [8] HI-G ACCELERATION

    Zero-G has its barfing problems. What about the 3+ G’s of chugging-up-to-speed? Can’t be mitigated! Who’d be allowed to book a ticket?

    [9] RADIATION EXPOSURE

    Lots of it above the atmosphere, you know. Not good stuff, but cosmic rays, gammas, x-rays, the gamut. Hazard pay for crew and pilots?

    [10] INSURANCE

    Kind of says it all, doesn’t it? Value of a life, of 500 of them. Risk to cover. Costs, per person … wow. 

    [11] PILOT TALENT POOL

    Well, its not like the Air Forces, Navies, Marines and so on are training competant astronauts by the gross, is it? I guess this will emerge as a career opportunity. 

    [12] SEATING & STRAPPING

    Remember – if “heavy” is contraindicated for normal aircraft, “heavy and comfy” is even less likely to ‘get the nod’ for spacecraft.  Figure nice-looking lawn chairs…

    [13] TURNAROUND CLEANING

    If it turns out that a bit-o-the-barf ends up jetting all over the cabin and its occupants, there’s going to be some seriously good cleanup required. Let’s conservatively say … every trip.  Without exception. Robots? This is an interesting operational gotcha.  
    ________________________________________

    But hey, other than those 13, its a sure thing, right?

    Just Saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  47. OK, I’ll bite. 

    [1] TAKEOFF NOISE

    Substantially as powerful as the Saturn V of Apollo days, going off every few minutes at a rocket-port near a big city?  This’d make the crazy-noisy Concorde look like a hummingbird by comparison.  

    Prosaic pictures of rockets taking off over water, within view of a big city skyline … is bogus. 

    [2] SAFETY

    There is no “plan B” you know: At least 10 failure modes, none of which have reasonable ‘survival’ plans.  

    [3] LANDING NOISE

    It’ll be ‘landing’ by rocket-braking. Less of it. That’s the vision, unless ‘they’ clamp big wings on it.  

    [4] INFRASTRUCTURE

    So… there aren’t any liquid methane depots at the hundred-odd popular big-city sites which might want a rocket port. This is ONLY an investment problem, right?

    [5] BARFING

    Turns out most-everyone gets sick at zero-G.  
    Much of the ballistic flight is at zero G. 
    How’s that going to work out with 500+ people (the only ‘economically viable’ load size) chucking up their hastily ill-conceived breakfasts?

    [6] WITHOUT SPACESUITS?

    A sudden-vacuum event would be almost assuredly lethal. 
    Not good. 
    If the pilots are wearing space suits, why not the passengers? 
    Or… is this just 2001 Space Odyssey…

    [7] SITTING DUCKS

    Then there’s the problem that they’re NOT airplanes. 
    Hard to avoid interception by errant … things. 
    ________________________________________

    Just Saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  48. My late aunts, spinster sisters that retired in San Diego in 1976 and lived well into their 90s, told me they used to travel back and forth from NYC to Europe on the Italian Line Andrea Doria, etc., – must have taken a week each way. That must have been very nice: a week-long cruise, reading books, eating catered food, looking at the view – no pressure. Y’all think it’s sexy to move around quicker; I think it would be sexy to slow the F down and enjoy the trip. That be real luxury – when you can afford to slow down.

    Yeah. That boat sank.

    I also remember asking them for advice WRT mortgages when I was buying my first house. They told me they had no idea about mortgages, because they never had one. Here’s where they lived for the last 40 years of their lives: https://www.google.com/maps/place/2930+McCall+St,+San+Diego,+CA+92106/@32.710405,-117.2379102,3a,75y,185.67h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-SiRqWZRiYciSy4hCwdm0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x80deab9164b393b5:0xa5fed95b58ecd5d9!8m2!3d32.7105454!4d-117.2378154

    Reply

Leave a Comment