If passenger density was comparable to a typical airliner, an intercontinental E2E flight should be roughly comparable to a subsonic flight. The supersonic flight would be substantially worse. Rockets have the advantage that they very rapidly get out of the dense part of the atmosphere.
In reality a Starship flight would probably sell few very expensive seats instead; just like Boom's aircraft only has 50 seats. Which would make it worse than subsonic flights in terms of fuel used, but still competitive with supersonic.
Should be much better, you spend most of the time coasting and most of your acceleration in very thin atmosphere, vs a plane that has to cruise down in the soup.
Also, starship has more pressurized volume than a 747. You can fit a lot of people.
And don't forget the required pressure suits. You can't just to use simple masks like in airplanes, since cabin pressure loss at heights beyond 25km would make breathing using just oxygen masks impossible.
jraines|3 years ago
zionic|3 years ago
This means you can spend more fuel/be less efficient overall for a much more comfortable acceleration profile.
In terms of safety, starship will fly hundreds, perhaps thousands of times before people fly on them. They'll get there.
crystaldecanter|3 years ago
wongarsu|3 years ago
In reality a Starship flight would probably sell few very expensive seats instead; just like Boom's aircraft only has 50 seats. Which would make it worse than subsonic flights in terms of fuel used, but still competitive with supersonic.
zionic|3 years ago
Also, starship has more pressurized volume than a 747. You can fit a lot of people.
ramesh31|3 years ago
qayxc|3 years ago
Ekaros|3 years ago
dylan604|3 years ago
zionic|3 years ago
foobiekr|3 years ago