SpaceX's plan to fly you across the globe in 30 minutes | Gwynne Shotwell

Another interesting watch is the TED talk by SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell earlier this year. ▶ this video Say what you will about Musk, but the guy is truly ambitious and willing to shoot for the stars ( or mars at the moment ).

If you think Elon Musk is crazy, you have to listen to Gwynne Shotwell [1] She wants to meet other people in other solar systems, I presume while she's still alive. ▶ this video

I love this quote from Gwynne Shotwell when asked how they achieved that no government has: "The first is that we're kind of standing on the shoulders of giants." Source: ▶ this video

>The fact is SpaceX launched 50% of the global payload to Orbit, and over around 30% of all spacecraft. Again, I'm not arguing that SpaceX isn't capable of ferrying people or cargo into orbit, or that they don't have a viable business, or that they are not leaders in this market segment. That's all fine. I have no issues with Musk or SpaceX. I like seeing American companies succeeding. But perhaps Musk should dial down the hyperbole. >It my have a kernel of truth but if the 'truth' is something totally banal like 'Reusability is not a panacea.' then that doesn't actually make their arguments valid But reusability isn't a panacea for cost savings. There are real challenges with reusable rockets. This is where Thunderf00t does a real good job explaining the issues because they aren't space-specific, but rather the problem derives from first principles of Newtonian mechanics ( link ) namely, you have to carry the fuel for return, which severely cuts into the amount of payload you can take up. Also, maintenance is expensive. But the issues are there. Tory Bruno, the CEO of ULA lays out the challenges of reusable rockets: link . Yes, he's a competitor, but his argument strikes me as honest and credible. So SpaceX hasn't proven the concept yet. They haven't made enough flights (and only the first stage boosters are actually reusable). The Space Shuttle is a good guide of how subtle the issues may be and it may take years to fully realize the flaws in the design or economics. Be

SpaceX's goal[1] is to be able to ship people for around the cost of a business-class ticket[2] to the same destination. [1] link [2] ▶ this video

Except totally unreasonable :) 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 o