> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Popper expands upon this, writing, "I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force..."
Isn't "If they're not willing to play fair, then _we_ must play fair" the core of of US philosophy? It certainly seems to be the standard imposed on US civil rights leaders and the central message of the big speeches in superhero movies.
The United States likes to say (or at least pretend) that it is a moral society, that it is through staying true to moral standards of truth and justice that the US will ultimately prevail, and that if the US fails to uphold those moral standards than the enemy has already won. US pop culture heroes (from X-Men to courtroom dramas and everything in between) constantly espouses this perspective.
From that perspective, the most important thing the US can do is keep an open communication channel with people in China so that they can ultimately see the error of their ways and come around to a US way of thinking, and cutting off communication with people in China is making the US more like China. It may be a self-righteous, egotistical, or even completely delusional way of looking at things, but the officially stated goals of US foreign policy frequently are.
I think the real underlying principle behind the United States is that the US says one thing and does another. Believing that the US has principles, etc. instead of just realpolitik in 2020 is naive. You have access to the all the information in the world.
> SpaceX CEO Elon Musk unveiled revised plans to travel to the Moon and Mars at a space industry conference today, but he ended his talk with a pretty incredible promise: using that same interplanetary rocket system for long-distance travel on Earth. Musk showed a demonstration of the idea onstage, claiming that it will allow passengers to take “most long-distance trips” in just 30 minutes, and go “anywhere on Earth in under an hour” for around the same price as an economy airline ticket.
All the references like "Please contact sales@spacex.com to evaluate how Starship can meet your unique needs" are pretty funny.
I'd like to imagine some mid-level manager working on his little satellite project browsing this pamphlet, thinking, "Hmmm, this 'SpaceX' company looks interesting. Let me send them an email."
I had a similar giggle reading about the "rideshare opportunities"
> This large deployable envelope allows for the design of novel payloads, rideshare opportunities and entire constellations of satellites on a single launch.
I'm totally looking forward to hailing a Starship in the Uber app. (I actually don't know what they mean by ridesharing)
In this context, ridesharing means piggybacking one or more small satellites on the launch of a larger, primary satellite. It can be close to "free" because the primary is going to launch anyway.
In the context of space launches, ridesharing means that multiple satellites share a single launch as opposed to the traditional 1 satellite 1 rocket approach.
All Starlink satellites have been launched via ridesharing missions, with ~60 satellites per launch (and sometimes with satellites from other companies!).
> All Starlink satellites have been launched via ridesharing missions, with ~60 satellites per launch (and sometimes with satellites from other companies!).
Actually aside from the first couple of Starlink test units, it has been the other way around. SpaceX launches dedicated Starlink missions on a regular cadence using previously flown boosters, and offsets the cost somewhat by offering rideshare opportunities. There will be 60 Starlink satellites per launch, but sometimes less if they find a rideshare.
The definition of rideshare is that they ride with multiple other satellites. 60 satellites means that each are ridesharing with 59 other ones.
The ridesharing program is what SpaceX offers to outsiders, but the concept of rideshared rocket is whenever a rocket ferries multiple satellites to save cost.
Rockets that size cannot be launched anywhere near populated areas, so they'd have to launch from off-shore platforms; outside of Australia, USA and Russia there are no worthwhile destinations that can safely host on-shore rocket launch complexes for that class of rocket.
This poses quite complex logistical challenges that enthusiasts just love to handwave away. But there's even more to it: airspace needs to be closed on both launch and target sites.
Weather will lead to scrubbed flights as rockets have much tighter weather parameters than aeroplanes and are incapable of changing routes mid flight or divert to alternate airfields.
The most ridiculous part, however, is passenger logistics: every astronaut/cosmonaut/taikonaut wears pressure suits during ascend, since otherwise there's no way to breathe in case of a loss of cabin pressure once you're above 20km. Oxygen masks just won't do anymore at such heights.
This means passengers would need to wear and familiarise themselves with pressure suits, unless SpaceX can convince the FAA somehow that even fewer failure modes can be mitigated while still being safe for passengers...
Getting onto the rocket is another point that's far from trivial - one doesn't simply walk into Starship and pick a seat. The seats wouldn't be upright, so passengers would need to climb into them and be secured by personell. Not to mention the elevator ride and the long wait during fuelling (remember: SpaceX are the only ones who do "dry-loading", that is they only start fuelling once the passengers are on board).
So your 30 minute short trip from LA to Paris would in reality consist of a 1 hour drive to the port, followed by 1 hour check-in and a 1 hour boat ride to the off-shore launch facilities. Next you'd have at least 1 hour of boarding procedures (limited elevator space, pressure suit fitting, seating) followed by fuelling (maybe another hour?). So after about 5 hours or so you are finally clear for launch and arrive somewhere off the coast of France 30 minutes later. From there it's another hour for unloading, an hour to get to the coast and another two hours from the coast to Paris.
In total, best-case scenario travel time would be about 9½h - better than the 16h via plane (12h flight + 4h getting to-/from airport plus boarding time), but a far cry from Shotwell's "business meeting in Abu Dhabi in the morning and back in Vancouver for dinner".
The off-shore launch platform idea isn't mine, by the way - the concept was brought forward by SpaceX themselves and presented by Glenn Shotwell who said "the longest part of the ride is be the boat out and back" [1].
I'm highly sceptical of the idea - not because I think it's impossible, which it isn't - but because the logistics, regulatory conditions, and economics behind it just don't make sense. I could be wrong, of course, and stranger things happened, but realistically, the odds are very much against this ever going to happen[+].
[+] using Starship/Super Heavy as envisioned and developed today
> would in reality consist of a 1 hour drive to the port, followed by 1 hour check-in and a 1 hour boat ride to the off-shore launch facilities. Next you'd have at least 1 hour of boarding procedures (limited elevator space, pressure suit fitting, seating) followed by fuelling (maybe another hour?). So after about 5 hours or so you are finally clear for launch
I see that the TSA mindflayers have not been kind to you. Many of those steps do not have to be performed sequentially. For example check-in and suit-up could be performed on the ferry. And if you're already throwing stupendous amounts of money at travel then you also don't have to pick a slow ferry, consider jet hydrofoils. And you don't even have to start at some port far from a city. If the city has a major river it could take up passengers in the middle of the city, travel down the river and on towards the launch platform.
And if we're talking about strapping hundreds of people onto rockets then the safety margins on everything would have to be improved far enough that the dry-loading probably is not needed anymore either.
As far as logistics go it seems hard but possible. But you may be right that regulatory conditions could prove prohibitive since not everyone will just go along with musk's plans.
The ferry doesn't deliver individuals. It carries a passenger seating/baggage module. People get themselves strapped in on the way out. At the launch site the module is hoisted and locked into the vehicle. On arrival, the module is extracted and lowered to the boat deck. People come down to the deck during the boat ride.
Probably their "pressure suits" are the same as the seats, just clamshells with room to scratch, and (often enough) barf.
But scheduled passenger service is 15-20 years off, if ever. They only talk about it now to make the whole enterprise seem inclusive, and not just billionaire playtime. It's even money that civilization will collapse, first.
We're still talking about international flights here - 90 min pre-flight arrival on international flights is standard. There won't be any less rigorous security checks because you're flying a rocket.
Parallel procedures might sound fine in theory, but it's way simpler to just have people onboard the ferry who are good to go and don't need to be kept there, make a scene, etc. Security personell and access to information systems is much simpler to come by in the port, which incidentally already has customs facilities anyway.
> And you don't even have to start at some port far from a city.
Yes you do, that's the whole idea of safe distances with rocket launches. We're talking about a vehicle that basically can be as devastating as a small tactical nuke in terms of destructive potential. Especially during launch, you'd want that thing as far away from densely populated areas as possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklVhRzkVqA&feature=youtu.be... that's what happened last time a 30-engine rocket failed...
> consider jet hydrofoils
That might be an option, but then again even Shotwell explicitly mentioned the boat ride to be longer than the 30 min rocket ride even at just 10 miles out, so I don't think fast ferries are the most realistic option (mostly for safety reasons).
Commercial aircraft were also totally unreasonable for quite a time after Wright's first flight in 1903.
Musk has explicitly stated that a "safety first" attitude does not get people to Mars. His hierarchy of action is "don't panic", not yet specified, "safety third, maybe". This philosophy is hard to implement in modern day America, but the attitude is part of what allows Elon Musk and the people that work with him to do what they do.
> Commercial aircraft were also totally unreasonable for quite a time after Wright's first flight in 1903.
That's comparing apples and orangutans.
This isn't a 1903 situation at all - we've launched rockets on a weekly basis for 60 years and operated crewed reusable spacecraft for more than 30 years.
This is well known territory. All limitations, possibilities and risks are well known and documented.
If you have to make a comparison, choose the Concorde versus Ju-52 or something. But even that's flawed because it doesn't fit at all.
The concerns I mentioned aren't going to magically disappear - even a "perfectly safe" (by whatever definition) rocket still has to deal with these. A 30-engine, 122m, 65MN rocket will generate a literally deafening blast and for that reason alone cannot be launched near cities. This is a fact of nature, not just a simple engineering problem or overly cautious safety concern.
Same goes for airspace closure, weather on both ends, and simple things like customs and security checks.
Starship won't have any cross-range capabilities, full stop. That's how rockets work and one consequence of this is that bad weather means a scrubbed launch, simple as that. Nothing to do with attitude or "modern America".
That's just physics and natural phenomena that exist and cannot be wished away.
Again, none of this prevents point-to-point travel from being possible, it just demonstrates that it's likely not going to be an everyday occurrence like long-haul flights. A novelty, maybe. Another option for the rich and important, sure.
A viable alternative to regular jets, I think not. Time might prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain the odds are stacked against regular point-to-point passenger flight service using huge rockets.
>Weather will lead to scrubbed flights as rockets have much tighter weather parameters than aeroplanes and are incapable of changing routes mid flight or divert to alternate airfields.
This part is not true.
Weather plays a significant role for thin rockets.
This one is thick enough to be launched during usual weather fluctuations.
Of course, a tornado or cyclone might be disruptive, but that's also true for normal airplanes.
Yes it is. A wider rocket has more generous margins when it comes to wind, sure, but thunderstorms, heavy rain, storm with strong gusts (doesn't have to be extreme either), sudden ice, heavy snow, etc. etc. will still prevent launches and especially landings.
> Of course, a tornado or cyclone might be disruptive, but that's also true for normal airplanes.
Normal aeroplanes fly around unfavourable regularly and flying holding patterns is normal procedure anyway. None of that is possible with rockets, no matter how wide.
The situation is worsened by the fact that pilots have the luxury of time when planning their route, e.g. bad weather at the destination during launch isn't a big deal for long-haul flights, since there's often 10 hours or more until it even becomes relevant.
With a rocket, weather at the launch and target site have to be favourable at pretty much the same time, since you'd get there in well under an hour.
We'll see later today how well the aerodynamics might work and how the rocket behaves. I remain very sceptical about the point-to-point idea.
There aren't enough customers to justify building something like Starship, so SpaceX created their own biggest customer with Starlink.
They are also hoping to provide Earth-to-Earth passenger service to compete with airlines on long distance routes, which would be orders of magnitude more launches than any other use. It seems quite unlikely that they could compete on safety though.
Not enough customers yet - if they can get it working its just a total money printer. Orbital refueling, tourism, cheap microgravity research, manufacturing and material processing or even early solar farms and habitats!
Or you might even just start by launching 20 tons of coffee beans, roasting them in orbit and selling them as "Space Coffee" - it migh still be worth it with the per launch costs they have mentioned.
DOD is already talking to SpaceX for rapid cargo transport applications.
“A military team is working with SpaceX to flesh out the prospect of shipping routes that pass through space, the head of U.S. Transportation Command said Oct. 7.”
“That group could demonstrate as early as 2021 whether quickly sending cargo around the globe via space is feasible, Army Gen. Stephen R. Lyons said.”
“Think about moving the equivalent of a C-17 payload anywhere on the globe in less than an hour,” Lyons said at a National Defense Transportation Association event. “Think about that speed associated with the movement of transportation of cargo and people. There is a lot of potential here.”
Isn't that going to trigger icbm monitoring systems? NASA works in concert with hem and schedules, etc., but military use that needed readiness like this seems like it would be asking for accidents.
This is a very good point. If transportation through space becomes routine, does that affect the ability to detect nuclear first strikes, and what does it do to the calculus of mutually assured destruction?
Hopefully this can be solved with comparable improvements in monitoring and/or adjustments to second strike capabilities.
ICBMs are far smaller and designed to travel far faster than any rocket carrying people would presumably go. It doesn't seem likely they could be easily confused.
MIRV warheads are smaller than regular nuclear warheads. The launch platforms for MIRVed nuclear warheads are the same as those for regular nuclear warheads. But on a MIRV, instead of one regular nuclear warhead there are multiple small nuclear warheads.
I'm thinking of things like r36m, but I guess it is used for non-mirv too. Warhead size is irrelevant as they use Mylar radar decoys or something right? Those can appear as any size so I was focusing on the launch vehicle size for monitoring.
Speed may be a differentiator like you originally said, I'm not sure if they need to end up around the same speed anyway for reentry or not (ones targeting high altitude blast for EMP maybe don't need to reentry at all?).
Anywhere on the globe in less than an hour... plus months of planning and days of preparing the launch vehicle. How fast can one "scramble" a Starship off the ground?
I assume fast turn around times from the Boca Chica (Texas) spaceport. Pick whichever Starship SN is refreshed and ready to go. Less Space Shuttle, more Southwest Airlines. Vehicles on the ground are vehicles not generating revenue.
Given the drone ship landings of the Falcon first stages, I wonder: could you land a Starship on a US aircraft carrier?
And the obvious next question: given Musk is happy to take ship names from pop culture and sci-fi, might he name one of the Starship vehicles “Enterprise”, and could the Starship Enterprise land on the USS Enterprise (CVN-80)?
The cost is likely to fall in the 1%-3% range of that of a C-17. The War Department could buy 100-200 of them for the cost of 2 C-17 Globemaster IIIs.
I would be interested to see if some form of portable, quickly constructed landing pad could be deployed, much like the mats used as runways during WWII.
Do they need a landing pad? They have to be capable of landing on unimproved martian or lunar rock, with enough spare capacity for either the fuel for a return flight (from the moon) or a local fuel generator (from Mars).
That should work, but it will likely not be able to safely launch again even if you managed to refuel it.
The engine power needed to launch in Earth gravity, even with a small hop fuel load might be too much for engines so close to the ground & with thick atmosphere preventing the exhaust from dissipating.
Oh... I forgot about the noise from launch, which is loud enough that echos could damage the vehicle if not damped.
Some form of tower to stand off the exhaust would be required.
So, the one way cost to get a C-17 full of cargo anywhere in the world is about $500,000
1 Million round trip.
I had the cost wrong, I thought it was per vehicle, it's per launch... $2,000,000. If it could fly back, it's only $4,000,000 per round trip.... just 4 times the cost of a C-17 delivery and return.
A C-17 load that doesn't require a ground stop in a foreign country or a tanker based in another country to refuel that same cargo plane. Advantage indeed.
Realistically this means Orbital DropShip Trooper as a role designation is probably 10-20 years out. Launch a Starship, kick out the drop pod "over" the target and then coast suborbital to landing zone (or go orbital and return to launch site).
A one-hour deployment capability anywhere in the world would revolutionise special forces.
Yuri Gagarin technically performed the first “orbital drop” style manoeuvre if you want to get into the semantics. The Soviets were concerned about the efficacy of the landing systems and made the decision (and designed the capsule to facilitate this) have him egress the and parachute to a nearly guaranteed safe landing rather than accept the risk of his death in an accident on landing.
God gave Noah the rainbow sign -- no more water, The Fire Next Time
I found the book to be much more intellectual and insightful compared to modern pop-race-psychology or whatever the latest wave of books should be called.
I feel strongly that it was one particular option that you listed, but I think this is a fair assessment. Wonder why it's being downvoted (maybe I'm missing something from this story too).
This is a very charged subject, akin to a political discussion. I am not surprised if it gets more downvotes. That is why I made an anonymous account. Pick the "wrong" side and now all your opinions are suspect.
