Thunderf00t has lost last of his marbles and remaining bits of credibility

[EEVblog]

and then spend hours of delays as it fuels

Why do they have to be onboard as it refuels?

You have to refuel just before launch for technical rockety reasons, and it can't stay fully fueled for long. So I don't believe they can do it hours before people start to board.

[CatalinaWOW]

and then spend hours of delays as it fuels

Why do they have to be onboard as it refuels?

You have to refuel just before launch for technical rockety reasons, and it can't stay fully fueled for long. So I don't believe they can do it hours before people start to board.

Two comments relative to this. 

They need the supercool propellants to squeeze every last bit of performance out of it.  And can't wait very long after fueling because of both the loss of propellant and because they don't have much room for thermal expansion of the fuel and boil off.   Depending on what a load of passengers weighs, and with whatever energy savings there are from a sub-orbital trajectory the fueling timing may be less critical in this application. 

Conventional passenger aircraft refuel while passengers are loading.  It doesn't seem impossible to do that on Starship.  At least not harder than grabbing the biggest rocket ever built out of mid-air.  For humor, think of a reverse PEZ dispenser to insert the passengers.  Again that is just for humor, but I do think there are more practical approaches that could work. 

[wraper]

Two comments relative to this.  They need the supercool propellants to squeeze every last bit of performance out of it.  Depending on what a load of passengers weighs, and with whatever energy savings there are from a sub-orbital trajectory the fueling timing may be less critical in this application.  And conventional passenger aircraft refuel while passengers are loading.  It doesn't seem impossible to do that on Starship.  At least not harder than grabbing the biggest rocket ever built out of mid-air.

Yes, you don't need to supercooled propellant for a suborbital flight, especially considering it won't be lifting maximum mass.

[CatalinaWOW]

Again, I am not arguing that suborbital flights for transport will be practical.  Ever.  And certainly not in the next few decades.  But debunk it with real facts and numbers, not with scary what ifs.  Having said that the following areas are what ifs that are hard to put real numbers on.

The noise problem is real, and is probably the only part of this that can't really be numerically evaluated.  Even if it could be proved harmless to humans and the environment, there are sufficient people who are offended by the noise, by the idea of spaceflight or by Musk that is just won't be allowed.  I wouldn't even try to attack it.  Just go out to sea or into truly unpopulated areas and deal with whatever problems that causes.

Economic attacks are also difficult.  Almost all travel is not necessary.  It is done for emotional reasons.  This is particularly true for first class seats.  There is some minor time savings from being in these seats, but there are enough people who are willing to pay for some combination of a few minutes quicker deboarding, a posh experience, and the bragging rights of being there that they are almost always sold out.  Guesses about what a suborbital flight seat will cost are just that - guesses.  I am sure that the masses won't be able to afford them.  But I wouldn't venture to guess how many zeros you need in your income or your fortune before people are willing to pay for them.   The space tourism thing isn't mature enough to provide any real data, but they seem to be selling a fair number of seats in the million dollars to ten million dollar range.  SpaceX has an aspirational goal of getting cost to orbit down by three orders of magnitude.  One can imagine that if they only get it down by a factor of ten the number of buyers will skyrocket.  If they get it down by a factor of one hundred (unlikely, but doesn't seem totally impossible) you are starting to be in the same order of magnitude as high end first class travel currently.

Safety is a real issue.  It has both an emotional and regulatory component.  Rocket flights will be distinctively less safe than airplanes forever, and the difference will be huge in the near future.  But safety is a weird thing.  I know many people who won't travel by air because of safety concerns.  These same people travel by automobile or train, which is demonstrably more dangerous.  Even for properly understood safety risks people have different risk tolerance.  I am one of those that would have gladly accepted a trip even though the chances of getting back alive were only about 97%.  Others feel very differently.   The regulatory side is the real issue.  At least here in the US safety has become paramount, and I am really surprised that the space tourism flights that have occurred have been allowed.  Perhaps being offshore even further, outside the legal jurisdiction of the US would solve more than the noise issues.  But there would still be problems selling tickets in the US and transporting people to the from a US location to the spaceport.

[Psi]

Starship does have the advantage of having 10-20x the number of engines of a jet.

Starship only has 6 engines, you are thinking of the super heavy booster it sits on.

ops, yeah,  brainfade.

[wraper]

who are willing to pay for some combination of a few minutes quicker deboarding, a posh experience, and the bragging rights of being there that they are almost always sold out.

9 hour flights (+1.5 hour another flight + transfer time) were the longest I took. Always in business class except one time. And I can say economy class is not fun on flights this long, especially compared to business that is so much better than on short flights.

[Psi]

It's never going to replace air travel and I don't think anyone is saying it will.
But like any new thing there will be some situations where it make sense, assuming the safety can get to the point where the public will accept the risk, which I think it will but not for a while. 

More than a while, never in fact, for the general public.
Apart from Richie Rich novelty/adventure value, which is at least possible (which is already a thing with space tourism), there is no viable path where people take it because it's quicker if you have to be transported to the middle of nowhere to board, and then spend hours of delays as it fuels. And then the transfer in the middle of nowhere to your city where you want to go.

The general public will have to accept the rocket risks if trips to space/moon/mars eventually become normal, the equivalent of an expensive air travel holiday now. Or for contractors who work in space doing construction of space stations.  Sure this is long term, but not "never".

I guess the question is, when we do have the public or workmen going on trips to a space-station/moon/mars will it be on some vehicle that works similar to Starship, or on something totally different.

I don't rule out a new type of Starship appearing at some point that has a detachable escape capsule built in, maybe 3x crew dragon size. But that would limit crew size to 15 or so. So no good for mass human transport like the 50-100 ppl crammed in like sardines that was being talked about at one point.

[EEVblog]

For humor, think of a reverse PEZ dispenser to insert the passengers.  Again that is just for humor, but I do think there are more practical approaches that could work.

[EEVblog]

It's never going to replace air travel and I don't think anyone is saying it will.
But like any new thing there will be some situations where it make sense, assuming the safety can get to the point where the public will accept the risk, which I think it will but not for a while. 

More than a while, never in fact, for the general public.
Apart from Richie Rich novelty/adventure value, which is at least possible (which is already a thing with space tourism), there is no viable path where people take it because it's quicker if you have to be transported to the middle of nowhere to board, and then spend hours of delays as it fuels. And then the transfer in the middle of nowhere to your city where you want to go.

The general public will have to accept the rocket risks if trips to space/moon/mars eventually become normal, the equivalent of an expensive air travel holiday now. Or for contractors who work in space doing construction of space stations.  Sure this is long term, but not "never".

I never said, never for space tourism, it's already a thing and will definitely become more so. But it won't be for the general public, I bet it will be mostly rich adventurous people or retirees looking for the ultimate bucket list trip spending the kids inheritance before they get too old.

I don't rule out a new type of Starship appearing at some point that has a detachable escape capsule built in, maybe 3x crew dragon size. But that would limit crew size to 15 or so. So no good for mass human transport like the 50-100 ppl crammed in like sardines that was being talked about at one point.

Starship might never get human rated.
I think SpaceX are crazy for not human rating Falcon Heavy and a Lunar Dragon for tourist flights around the moon. That would be a cash cow.

[Psi]

Starship might never get human rated.
I think SpaceX are crazy for not human rating Falcon Heavy and a Lunar Dragon for tourist flights around the moon. That would be a cash cow.

SpaceX have their goal set on getting to mars unlike your typical company that decides what to do based on maximizing profits. Pretty sure SpaceX would consider Falcon Heavy with a Lunar Dragon a distraction.

Starlink is their cash cow, or it's supposed to be once fully deployed and all the worlds cellphone providers are paying them to extend their coverage to 100%.

[EEVblog]

SpaceX have their goal set on getting to mars unlike your typical company that decides what to do based on maximizing profits.

Then they had better have other big cash cows, because mars will do nothing but hemorrhage cash, forever, with zero return.

[coppice]

Starship might never get human rated.

The whole issue of what it takes to get a space vehicle human rated is pretty woolly. In the end you can pretty much anything human rated, or banned from human rating, according to poilitical clout. You might expect a proven track record before people are on board, but we have seen with Artemis and Starliner that even when the unmanned tests aren't clean they are still prepared to move on to putting humans on board.

[PlainName]

Starship might never get human rated.

Now Musk has control over the personnel and finances, not to mention existence, of the regulatory bodies, if he desires then it will be so.

[tszaboo]

Starship might never get human rated.

Now Musk has control over the personnel and finances, not to mention existence, of the regulatory bodies, if he desires then it will be so.

Does he?
Which regulatory body did he do anything with?

[TimFox]

Starship might never get human rated.

Now Musk has control over the personnel and finances, not to mention existence, of the regulatory bodies, if he desires then it will be so.

Does he?
Which regulatory body did he do anything with?

See  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elon-musks-government-dismantling-fight-stop/story?id=118576033

For details of these agencies, see that site.
CMS (part of DHHS), CFPB, Dept of Education, FAA, FEMA, NIH, NOAA (lest they report that the weather is warming), Treasury, and USAID (effectively shut down already).

[tszaboo]

Starship might never get human rated.

Now Musk has control over the personnel and finances, not to mention existence, of the regulatory bodies, if he desires then it will be so.

Does he?
Which regulatory body did he do anything with?

See  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elon-musks-government-dismantling-fight-stop/story?id=118576033

For details of these agencies, see that site.
CMS (part of DHHS), CFPB, Dept of Education, FAA, FEMA, NIH, NOAA (lest they report that the weather is warming), Treasury, and USAID (effectively shut down already).

Right, so if you fire all the DEI employees and shut down their programs, that affects the regulations how exactly?

[PlainName]

That is only so far. Trump has just ordered everyone to defer to Musk.

FAA is in Musk's bad books for fining him over unlicensed rocket launches. There is a stupendous conflict of interests here, and given Musk's super-thin skin and emotions of a six-year-old, do you expect him to say, "OK, fair cop, gov, I'll mend my ways"? Not a bleeding chance!

[TimFox]

A regulation unenforced has no effect.
DEI is the current name for the target, but there are interests and history involved.
For example, Musk has one transgender child, and blames USAID for the fall of apartheid in South Africa (the history of that is now archived.)
The CFPB was supposed to be a counter against big banks, etc., in favor of consumers.  Obviously unpopular in certain circles.

[TimFox]

That is only so far. Trump has just ordered everyone to defer to Musk.

FAA is in Musk's bad books for fining him over unlicensed rocket launches. There is a stupendous conflict of interests here, and given Musk's super-thin skin and emotions of a six-year-old, do you expect him to say, "OK, fair cop, gov, I'll mend my ways"? Not a bleeding chance!

The FAA is an important example.  They had the unmitigated audacity to fine Musk’s enterprise for a violation of regulations.  The head was forced out (resigned on Inauguration Day), leaving the agency unheaded in time for the DCA collision.
But don’t worry: it has been announced that Musk will self-report any conflicts of interest.

[Simmed]

i remmeber this 1

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-spacex-discriminating-against-asylees-and-refugees-hiring

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) for discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring. The lawsuit alleges that, from at least September 2018 to May 2022, SpaceX routinely discouraged asylees and refugees from applying and refused to hire or consider them, because of their citizenship status, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

i think i saw something cited about secrets act, they are not suppose to hire just anybody ?
to be or not to be ? 


https://www.reuters.com/legal/spacex-wins-reprieve-us-lawsuit-alleging-anti-immigrant-bias-2023-11-09/

U.S. District Judge Rolando Olvera in Brownsville, Texas said in a written order late Wednesday that administrative judges at the Justice Department who hear cases involving anti-immigrant bias were not properly appointed.

then it turns out, the judges were not properly appointed 
how do you improperly appoint judges ? 

[wraper]

i remmeber this 1

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-spacex-discriminating-against-asylees-and-refugees-hiring

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) for discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring. The lawsuit alleges that, from at least September 2018 to May 2022, SpaceX routinely discouraged asylees and refugees from applying and refused to hire or consider them, because of their citizenship status, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

i think i saw something cited about secrets act, they are not suppose to hire just anybody ?
to be or not to be ? 


https://www.reuters.com/legal/spacex-wins-reprieve-us-lawsuit-alleging-anti-immigrant-bias-2023-11-09/

U.S. District Judge Rolando Olvera in Brownsville, Texas said in a written order late Wednesday that administrative judges at the Justice Department who hear cases involving anti-immigrant bias were not properly appointed.

then it turns out, the judges were not properly appointed 
how do you improperly appoint judges ? 

Dunno about the judges but that case is an absolute BS. Prosecuting (very stringently) ITAR controlled company for not hiring only God know who. Make it make sense.

[coppice]

Dunno about the judges but that case is an absolute BS. Prosecuting (very stringently) ITAR controlled company for not hiring only God know who. Make it make sense.

Its not just the ITAR issues. Even for low security jobs the US government insists on no illegal immigrants in its contractors..... except when it suits them not to.

[tszaboo]

That is only so far. Trump has just ordered everyone to defer to Musk.

FAA is in Musk's bad books for fining him over unlicensed rocket launches. There is a stupendous conflict of interests here, and given Musk's super-thin skin and emotions of a six-year-old, do you expect him to say, "OK, fair cop, gov, I'll mend my ways"? Not a bleeding chance!

The FAA is an important example.  They had the unmitigated audacity to fine Musk’s enterprise for a violation of regulations.  The head was forced out (resigned on Inauguration Day), leaving the agency unheaded in time for the DCA collision.
But don’t worry: it has been announced that Musk will self-report any conflicts of interest.

He was going to be forced out anyway. Nothing to do with Musk.
Your issue is that a Republican president appoints another Republican as head of a agency. Unlike last time this was always going to happen, as you cannot have an entire administration that's working against you.

[TimFox]

That is only so far. Trump has just ordered everyone to defer to Musk.

FAA is in Musk's bad books for fining him over unlicensed rocket launches. There is a stupendous conflict of interests here, and given Musk's super-thin skin and emotions of a six-year-old, do you expect him to say, "OK, fair cop, gov, I'll mend my ways"? Not a bleeding chance!

The FAA is an important example.  They had the unmitigated audacity to fine Musk’s enterprise for a violation of regulations.  The head was forced out (resigned on Inauguration Day), leaving the agency unheaded in time for the DCA collision.
But don’t worry: it has been announced that Musk will self-report any conflicts of interest.

He was going to be forced out anyway. Nothing to do with Musk.
Your issue is that a Republican president appoints another Republican as head of a agency. Unlike last time this was always going to happen, as you cannot have an entire administration that's working against you.

Under “settled” US law, many technical agencies were established with terms for directors that straddled terms for Presidents to afford some independence from political control.  This is inconvenient for some. 
Other agencies such as Cabinet offices (e.g. Secretary of State) are completely political and change with each administration (subject to Senate confirmation).
Musk had repeatedly pushed for Whitaker’s ouster after SpaceX was fined for safety violations.  He had 5 years left on his term.
An acting FAA director was appointed hurriedly after the DCA crash.

[wraper]

Musk had repeatedly pushed for Whitaker’s ouster after SpaceX was fined for safety violations.  He had 5 years left on his term.
An acting FAA director was appointed hurriedly after the DCA crash.

More like FAA decided to fine SpaceX for FAA's own ineptitude if you read what it was actually about.