> If it's so cheap you can go up for your birthday, or can do transatlantic flights, then it's a bit different - but nobody is talking about it ever getting THAT cheap

Actually, Shotwell has. She has speculated that they could eventually do a trans-Pacific hop for the price of a first class plane ticket.

That will never work. You'll spend more time traveling to and from the remote launch facilities than you would flying conventionally from a nearby international airport. Destinations would also be severely limited by technology export laws; maybe it could be arranged for a handful of friendly nations / strategies allies like Japan or Australia, but most of the world would be scratched off the list.

When Shotwell and Musk talk about stuff like that or Mars colonies, they're hyping the company to attract more talent. If you loom at what they're actually building, it's all satellite launchers.

Someone downvoted you because you have hit a nerve. Don't mind those people.

I don't know, Dallas to Sydney is a 17 hour flight now. If it takes 30 minutes on a rocket from Texas you have 16 hours to do everything else and you'll still get there faster.

If that was just intended to forecast costs, then it’s a good analogy. But I thought SpaceX went further than that. This Adam Something video provides some amusing coverage of the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUiIdre-MI

I don't know what to tell you but that is basically the equivalent of a kickstarter scam.

This whole thread is wild.

> Person who sells snake oil speculates that snake oil cures cancer.

Reminder that the issue with snake oil was that most of it was counterfeit, not from the kind of snake that produced the oil with actual benefits.

> The list of things you can do is short.. Telecom, Telescopes looking down, tourism, space mining

The first three have provided quite a bit of launch demand. Nation funded human space flight has been in decline since Apollo but commercial launch demand has been grown significantly.

The last two have yet to be tapped but their combined potential have the ability to create unprecedentedly high levels of demand.

I'm no expert but I think Rome was always growing but never achieved ultimate profitability. Yesterday I was considering how the Italian renaissance was fueled by the materials left over from Roman overbuilding. The price Rome originally paid in labor was an enormous savings to the renaissance builders.

I don't see how space can be profitable but societies must grow.

How do you define profitability for a entity like Rome or its current equivalents, let's say the USA, China and maybe Russia?

As Italian, we're still profiting from what the Romans built and from their general hegemony.

There's always an element of time to money, so your argument and the parent's don't contradict in that the romans might have not been profitable in the near term yet what they created was very profitable in the long term

Mostly on the idea that as the Roman Empire expanded its currency was devalued by precious metal content. That sort of pattern signifies to me decline. I understand that the currency may have been just keeping pace with the efficiency of trade. It seems to me that if trade was as efficient as Rome was hoping it would not have collapsed.

Another way to look at it is that the empire ran into a labor shortage and contracted back to a sustainable size.

> how space can be profitable

Figuring out how to get large nearly pure metallic asteroids in earth orbit would go a long way in figuring out that profitability.

The problem is that there seem to be plenty of easier to solve problems that would have an immediate effect on the dignity of human existance.

I love the challenge of space technically. My concern is confusing technical challenges with profitable/worthy pursuits.

I say this as a collector of inertial guidance systems.