[midland_trucker]

A thing I find mind-blowing is that if this concept succeeds, that I and everyone reading this will be able to afford to go to low earth orbit on a relatively modest salary within the next ~20 years (conservatively).

This feels like quite a difficult reality to internalise given we all grew up seeing only a select few exceptional people, with the stars aligning in their career, be able to do that.

[mrandish]

Long before heading to orbit, I'm excited to just get a front row seat for the launch of a fully loaded Starship. Apparently, being in the NASA guest stands for a Saturn V launch was mind-blowing and this would be double that.

Hopefully, SpaceX will set up some kind of excursion package where you get a Starbase tour, a primo front row seat to a launch and a limited edition T-shirt. Forget Taylor Swift tickets for >$1K when Starship can literally rock my world.

[bombcar]

Spectators were kept about 3 miles from Saturn V launches, so you could build a REALLY WIDE stadium for Starship launches. The Circus Maximus wouldn't have ANYTHING on it.

We might be less than 50 years out from Starship or similar launches being as boring as a plane taking off or a train passing by.

[mrandish]

I'm hoping it's more like 5 years to Starship launches being 'routine'. Maybe I'm an irredeemable optimist but that would at least be more similar to the curve of Falcon launches being 'routine' (I concede that to some of us, orbital launches will never be considered routine – no matter how frequent).

I'd even lay 50%-ish odds that they'll do back to back payload launches in 30 days or less by the end of next year. That'll of course depend on things going very well over the next few months so they manage to get a Starship to orbit and back on the ground at the launch site this year.

[mstade]

I saw an Atlas V launch at KSC in January 2017, from the LC-39 observation gantry, and it was incredible. Highly recommend seeing a launch – any launch! – if you have the means and opportunity.

[panick21_]

It will fly from Florida so that will be much easier then going to Starbase.

[sva_]

I wonder if people in general are fit for the G-forces they're subjected to when launching into space.

I think astronauts usually go through very rigorous testing and training. And I'm not sure that is something we can engineer ourselves out of.

[fhrow4484]

Per https://spaceexplored.com/2021/05/06/can-you-make-it-as-a-bl...:

> When it comes to the G-Forces being pushed on you, many roller coasters have peak G’s at or above these limits. Most people are probably familiar with the different rides at Walt Disney World so let’s use those for examples. At EPCOT, Mission Space is a centrifuge-based ride where you go through a simulated launch and landing on Mars. The sustained G’s on that ride is 2.5 G’s, close to how many G’s New Shepard will experience during launch.

> For the descent, Blue Origin says you must be able to withstand 5.5 G’s, if you ever rode Rock ‘n Roller Coaster at Disney’s Hollywood Studios, you would have experienced up to 5 G’s during the initial launch of the ride.

Epcot Mission Space (the "Orange" version) is pretty intense as it's really sustained G-forces, but manageable. During the ride, you have to reach in front of you to press some buttons, and that's when you feel the G-forces most. But for SpaceX/BlueOrigin, passengers do nothing.

Rock n Roller Coaster itself for the peak G is done by kids, not a big deal.

[SmooL]

This is slightly misleading - what matters isn't the peak G force experienced, but moreso the integral of force over time. In a roller coaster you might experience 5Gs, but only for a moment. Astronauts experience 3G, but for up to 5 minutes continuously

[nrb]

On the Gravitron, a centrifuge carnival ride in the shape of a flying saucer, riders experience 3Gs for minutes. Best carnival ride as a kid, we rode it continuously for ages.

[adriand]

Oh god, I will never forget that ride. I was at a carnival when I was around 13 or 14 and rode that ride, and midway through it had a malfunction. They stopped it to address the issue, and then decided to give us an extra long ride to compensate for the problem. When it was finally over and I was about ready to stagger off of it, the operator got on the mic and said, “who wants more?!?” Seemingly everyone but me screamed for more. At that point I was too sick to make any sounds at all.

That night, hours later, as I lay on the floor of my friend’s bedroom (it was a sleepover), trying to fall asleep, I still remember feeling like the room was spinning. I never went back on that ride.

[noduerme]

Funny, something really similar happened to me! 14 years old, at a friend's birthday party at Magic Mountain. The Superman ride was new. That's where you get into a bullet shaped gondola and get shot up a vertical tower, with a giant statue of Superman at its apex, go briefly weightless and then freefall backwards until you curve flat and brake to a stop. Never big on roller coasters, I got peer pressured into this one.

I didn't like it all that much. But what scared the hell out of me was when, on descent, the brakes malfunctioned. This caused the gondola to go screaming backwards past the platform where the next riders were lined up, fly through some butcher curtains and go crashing into a padded wall in a hidden cinder block cell at the end of the track.

We all sat there for a minute pretty stunned, and then some goofy employee came running out and jumped up on the front of the car. "Whoops! That wasn't supposed to happen!" He said. "But I have some great news for you! Who wants to go again??"

And of course, all the kids cheered.

[idontwantthis]

I remember it had a little window in the door and if I accidentally looked at it, I would realize I was spinning and Instant Nausea.

[orwin]

My brother and me tried this ~4 years ago (we are adults, but still, carnival is fun). I handled it well, but my brother was traumatized. I think you ought to check each future passenger if the sensation of being compressed and having troubles breathing won't trigger a phobia.

[twodave]

Oh man. I hit my head while riding one of those as a teenager. Ruined my whole night at the fair. Never again.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Reminds me of this classic scene (retching sound suppressed for the faint of heart): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdWWqV0jUVc

[raverbashing]

> we rode it continuously for ages.

Until it stops

People who apparently don't have motion sickness are funny, I know proactively not to go on things like that

[dsfyu404ed]

The area under the curve doesn't matter if the peak isn't big enough.

A physically fit person can probably live normally at 2g all day with no problems other than feeling tired af until you get used to it and all farts being dangerous.

At 9Gs seconds matter no matter how fit you are.

[sho_hn]

Hang on. Explain the farts bit!

[JKCalhoun]

Guessing they meant "sharts".

[lostlogin]

Spent way too long trying to work out what a dangerous shart might do.

[Teever]

I know it's not exactly the same as living in a 2g environment, but many people seem to live surprisingly long lives with a body weight that is several times what it should be.

[baq]

Blood in veins still only experiences 1g in this case. At 9 it really wants to be… elsewhere.

[stametseater]

If you prop yourself upside-down against a wall before farting, you should be safe.

[mgiampapa]

On a large enough time scale the survival rate for everyone is zero.

[taneq]

Might as well join the military and get your citizenship.

[lttlrck]

and you experience a huge number of Gs if you fall and bang your head; Concussion occurs at 90-100G!

[post-it]

I rode Epcot Mission Space Orange, and I didn't realize it was a centrifuge. I thought it just cleverly tipped you on your back to simulate G-forces. It certainly felt real, so it's neat to know that it was.

[zwily]

That ride is a puke machine. I was talking to one of the workers and they said their main job is cleaning up puke all day.

I loved it.

[phire]

You can absolutely use engineering to limit the g forces. It's just a matter throttling back the engines near the end of a stage and/or staging sooner. For example, Gemini peeked at 6.4g, Apollo peeked at 4g and the Space Shuttle peeked at 3g.

3g is low enough that most humans shouldn't black out, even without training.

I'll also point out that professional astronauts are expected to remain functional for the entire assent (including emergencies, where g forces might peek much higher), which is not required for passengers.

[rqtwteye]

“Gemini peeked at 6.4g”

I remember reading that the Titan 2 pushed so hard that even the astronauts, who were pretty tough test pilots back then, were happy when the engine finally shut off.

[bodhiandphysics]

Astronauts also need to be able to survive 1) high g reentrues (apollo reached 7 gs on reentry) and abort modes, which can be very high acceleration indeed

[phire]

Yes, though you can engineer reentry too.

For example, the space shuttle uses it's wings (and body) to generate quite a bit of lift and spread the reentry over a much longer period. the g-forces during re-entry. It's 10min at 1.7g.

Though that's from LEO. Apollo came in directly from the moon at a much higher velocity, resulting in ~7g; For the Apollo missions that never left earth orbit, reentry was more like 3.5g.

A space ship aiming to carry untrained passengers will pick designs and mission profiles that are within their passengers abilities to withstand for both launch and reentry. Apollo picked a design and mission profiles with 7g reentry acceleration because they knew their trained astronauts could withstand it.

As for abort.. it's only limited spikes of high-g you only need it to be survivable for the passengers, while the pilots need to be able to control it.

[prox]

Starship does kinda do a shuttle wing entry right?

[phire]

Yeah, it has some lift. Not as much as the space shuttle, but more than apollo.

I couldn't find published numbers for reentry.

I know it hits 2.5g for a second during the final flip maneuver, I suspect they have engineered it to hit about the same during reentry.

[andyjohnson0]

IIRC the peak for Mercury-Redstone was alightly higher than Gemini at about 7g.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

Most are. If you have certain heart conditions, you might not know you have them, and then die. That's why it's likely that they'd require an ECG (and maybe have an age limit and require generally reasonable health/fitness), but if you're a reasonably healthy adult, it should be fine.

Forces depend a lot of the specific vehicle. The space shuttle peaks at 3 G, I've seen numbers from 3.6 to 4.5 (again peak) for Crew Dragon on the way up, 3-5 on the way back. Soyuz seems to be 4 on a good day and 10 on a bad one, plus the momentary forces during landing.

Since we put anyone willing to pay a few bucks on carnival rides that sustain (!) up to 3 G for minutes, and the profile can likely be adjusted at the expense of reduced payload capacity, I don't expect this to be a big problem.

[jfengel]

If William Shatner can do it in his 80s, I'm pretty sure that a substantial fraction of the population can do it.

Don't get me wrong, Shatner has worked hard to keep himself in shape. And he didn't get to orbit. But if you keep in shape (and are rich or famous) it may be an option.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

The dude was 90 when he went to space, 92 now. He won the genetic lottery it seems - in amazing shape/looks for his age.

[rqtwteye]

Shatter didn’t go into orbit though. But generally I agree.

[HideousKojima]

Will Shatner was 90 when he was on a suborbital launch with Blue Origin. Given his wealth and access to quality healthcare etc. he was probably a decent amount healthier than the median 90 year old, but given that he was able to do it without issue I imagine the vast majority of humans under the age of ~60 or so can definitely manage.

[SyzygistSix]

They sent two very ordinary people with only months of training on the Inspiration 4 mission.

[ledauphin]

is this a generally agreed-upon fact? I'm not sure I buy it, but I'm interested to see a defense of it.

[midland_trucker]

Perhaps a lot of people wouldn't agree and I admit I'm stirring up debate a bit to see what other people think.

To me it seems if we see orbital success in the next 5 yrs, mass production of starship thereafter and SpaceX sticking to their Earth-to-Earth transport idea - this seems plausible. Airliners developed about as quick, but then again its a far harder environment - it's nice to dream.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0

(edit rambling on about the wrong system)

[bobthepanda]

Airliners also developed in the context of a state supported system that used regulated high ticket prices and mail route subsidies to keep the industry alive for any needed pivot to military aircraft. I don’t know that there is the stomach for such a system today.

[justinclift]

Wonder how fast such a system could move cargo between the US and London/EU?

Seems potentially a bunch quicker than current air transport (~12 hours)?

[bobthepanda]

How much cargo is premium enough that needs to be shipped quicker than 12h?

We have pretty much instant communication already in the form of email.

[Telemakhos]

I wonder how fast Starship could move 100 tons of troops and materiel to a war front.

[giantrobot]

The C-5 Galaxy can transport 127 tons and land at normal airports with at least one order of magnitude lower per kg prices. A C-17 can transport 77 tons. More importantly they can actually unload their cargo once they land. A Starship would need either special facilities or an as-yet undersigned integral crane to unload cargo.

[idontwantthis]

I remember reading that that use case doesn’t really exist, especially for the US military. Stuff they need a lot of, they pre-stage, and an airborne invasion requires massive logistics, including the entire follow on ground invasion. It’s not just a matter of getting the paratroopers there quickly.

[lsh123]

The number Mask is targeting is $10/kg to orbit. With all supplies, it means under $10k / person for a week in orbit.

[throwawaylinux]

That doesn't include the cost of a vehicle that can support you for a week and re-enter and land safely, and does not include cost of ground systems to support the mission and recover you. Nor training or regulatory compliance costs. It's just the mass to orbit.

Even if Starship delivers everything promised, I doubt orbit would be within reach of wage earners. Similarly we could afford to pay for a ship to drop a few tons of rock off Guam, but going to the bottom of the Mariana trench and returning alive would be a different kettle of fish.

[AstralStorm]

The target that's rather optimistic. Initially I would expect at leasy 20x that.

[TOMDM]

Is that target $10kg to orbit and back?

I imagine the price of getting mass back down from orbit would bump your cost up a bit right?

[simonh]

The starship upper stage has to come back down anyway, so I don’t see why you’d need to double the cost.

[TOMDM]

The upper stage coming down empty vs full of cargo are entirely different beasts surely?

[dev_tty01]

Every kilogram of mass added to the return trip increases the required deceleration, fuel, etc. Not cheap. At some point you can't reach orbit with the required fuel to get everything back. The Falcon 9 boosters are nearly empty when they come back. As a matter of fact, at least one of their early landing failures was because they cut the fuel load too close and ran out of fuel just before reaching the ground. Minimizing weight on the return landing is critical.

[lsh123]

I already doubled it ;)

[fijiaarone]

If I just give up lattes and new Ferraris for 20 years, and work real hard, I can go to space!

[enslavedrobot]

Starship is designed to lower the cost to space below 100$/kg.

Forget tourism, at that price beaming solar power back to earth approaches viability.

[tim333]

I think the rocket will succeed but I find Musk's projections of costs as low as $10 a ton to orbit a bit unlikely.

[starbase]

No one at SpaceX has projected $10 per ton. Cost of fuel is about $10,000 per ton to LEO, assuming Starship can lob 100 tons at a time.

In a speech to USAF in 2019, Musk said SpaceX's out of pocket cost per launch could be "maybe like $2 million," which would be about $20,000 per ton.

Adjust numbers for inflation accordingly.

[tim333]

Sorry, $10/kg was what I was thinking of https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/09/28909310/elon-musk-calls...

[starbase]

Not to be pedantic, but the $10/kg number came from a graphic published by the journal Science, not from Musk.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1571540353978859526

See also this tweet clarifying that fixed costs are expected to exceed marginal costs:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1328770804222468097

"looks like marginal cost of launch will be less than $1M for more than 100 tons to orbit, so it’s mostly about fixed costs divided by launches per year"

Not trying to nitpick you here. Just hoping to correct some of the confusion that results from playing Telephone with secondary and tertiary sources.

[tjpnz]

I used to think that being born a millenial was a curse for realising those kinds of dreams. But as someone who's not an influencer and who's not interested in overpriced suborbital carnival rides I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.