[koolba]

Normally I'd agree with you but seeing that SpaceX was able to go from zero to sending stuff into orbit in a decade, building a plane in that same time period doesn't seem totally unreasonable.

I'd be more concerned with the realities of battery technology not being ready and existing regulations/testing stretching the timetable v.s. pure technical ability of a team to design something that would be fit for purpose.

[ptaipale]

Building a space craft quickly is in fact more realistic because you're not operating in the conventional flight market which has extremely high requirements and heavy regulation for safety.

If a space rocket blows up, including passengers, it's okay, part of the business - everyone knows space flight is high risk. If a commercial flight crashes, that is simply not acceptable.

[gus_massa]

They smartly tested the initial rockets in unmanned missions. (Actually, all of them yet.) So they have two explosions, a few minor problems (and many expected crash landings test) but no one was killed.

For comparison: https://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm

[wiz21c]

SpaceX has re-done something that was already done. It's no small feat, but the proof of concept existed years ago.

An electric plane with 100+ person on board has no POC so far...

[kbart]

Rocket launches have pretty high failure rate of 0.8 - 8%[0]. That is not acceptable for commercial flights. Would you fly a plane that fails mid-air one flight out of twenty?

0. http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8566/what-is-the-su...

[jhbadger]

Also, SpaceX is fine with having their vehicles occasionally explode. Which is considered par for the course in spaceflight circles, but not so much in jet travel.

[koolba]

Well they're a startup in the traditional sense as rockets tend to "move fast and break things".