Regardless, not only do I think I would I appreciate the shorter, more violent flight more as I got older, I would also appreciate the roll of the dice that if anything goes wrong we just all die instantly. Not a bad way to go, really.
If the G-forces are unpredictable, well something went really really wrong.
But you are probably right in that there will be more medical restrictions than there are now. But someone with a spinal injury, or who is very pregnant, or very weak from age probably isn't going to be flying in today's aircraft either.
It's surprising (to me at least) that it's not always instant. For example on the space shuttle Columbia, the astronauts went unconscious after a few seconds as the spacecraft was tumbling and breaking apart  but it's plausible that they could have regained consciousness if they survived the violent episode inside the shuttle as it broke apart.
I imagine that there will be people willing to travel via rocket just because of the 3+ G's. And I'd take a 30 minute roller coaster ride over a 10 hr first class flight any time, all the time. Less time spent flying > comfort while flying. One immediate benefit is that one doesn't have to take a week or more off of work for intercontinental travel. Weekend jaunts to Pattaya or the Alps are possible when you aren't spending 20+ hours in transit.
Can't this be somewhat alleviated with some sort of free 360 deg. rotating suspension of the passenger cabin? So that the G forces are at least pointing "down".
/s (sort of).
Edit: Since its not obvious, they have some machines that can go in autonomous mode and alert the hospital if the patient needs an actual doctor to fix something.
As far as I can tell, none of those devices acts autonomously or even close to it.
This all culminated in the Air Mail Act of 1934  which prohibited airlines and airplane manufacturers from operating under the same corporate umbrella.
It will be interesting to see where this ends up with SpaceX integrating the consumer facing airline operation with rocket manufacturing. Something commercial airlines are not able to do.
And vomit. 4+G on launch. Freefall during cruise. 5+ G on reentry. Give me the first class ticket on a BA flight any day.
Obviously not for everyone, but you don't really need to be able to service _everyone_ to be profitable.
Things will be very different when BFRs are flying regularly. BFRs imply full reusability, and full reusability implies a short 'cycle' time, which implies a much greater earth to orbit capacity, with implies a greater supply and more reliability to orbit, which implies that it stops being crazy to require that you have three or four launches in a single year to get all of your "stuff" into orbit.
The logistics of space launch are still crazy. You can launch two rockets in a weekend using two launch pads but you can't yet launch multiple rockets a week from the same launch pad.
If the flight time drops from 12 hours to 30 minutes, and prices are in the same ballpark of $2,000, then there would be more demand.
The execs could all be in Shanghai for the board meeting and some of them could be back in NYC for dinner.
a crown jewel of human innovation, used to make sure the plutocrats don't have to suffer from the terror of foreign 5 star chefs.
can We call it "The Integral" instead of BFR? 
Russia can already stick a nuke in a commercial airliner and set it off over NYC, if they want.
Bombers are the same way, there is nothing that prevents building a nuclear bomber in the shell of a 747 and calling it a cargo plane on its transponder.
Well, that's one option. Russia will need an early warning network to rival the American one either way, and given that and proper flight path registration... maybe there would be no confusion. Maybe.
Would require rockets with speed/altitude limit uncrippled GPS.
Rockets that use solid boosters like the Space Shuttle, SLS, or Atlas V do a good amount of ozone damage as they go up but the ozone damage from cryogenic propellants of the sort that a BFR uses is pretty small.
I could not be more skeptical.
I honestly don't know, so if someone can explain how it really is damage, please do so by all means. But despite some popular suppositions to the contrary, "affects" != "damage". I know it affects it, probably from the same article from a week or so back as you, but that doesn't mean it's "damaged".
Depending on the efficiency of the rocket and the reduced number of people doing this, the numbers shouldn't be that much higher.
So, they are actually very efficient transportation for long trips. Absolute worst case flying around the world is 24,901 mi which uses the same fuel per person as a 35 MPG car commuting 26 miles each way for one year.
PS: You can double check this by considering ~1/3 of the cost of a seat as being spent on fuel.
Fuel economy improves at first due to reduced overhead of taxiing, takeoff, and ascent, but as you go farther the fuel consumption increases due to the need to actually carry the fuel.
There is a tradeoff of needing carry more fuel over a portion of the flight, but the aircraft also spends a higher percentage of it's fuel on flying vs taxiing etc.
I'm not saying cars are more efficient. It's just that the distance travelled is huge when one uses an airplane.
However, it's possible to generate Methane fairly easily using solar power, so such launches have the potential to be nominally carbon neutral with some investment.
Ignoring obvious scalability problems, wouldn’t it be possible to manufacture that with a pretty decent environmental footprint from various carbon neutral bio sources?
The same propellant (methane) can also be used on planes, eventually, so BFR will bring many technologies advances independently of the outcome of the project.
Obviously planes in the future can use cleaner propellants too.
Do people still believe in Elon? Or have we figured out these are advertisements.
If she says it'll happen in the next X years, I'll put it at a >75% chance of being accurate. If Elon said something like that, i'd put it at 33% chance.
You're not out-visioning Elon; it's a petty attempt at one-upmanship. It just doesn't seem genuine. I want to meet people in other Superclusters. Now she's been out-visioned!
Gwynne Shotwell is SpaceX's President . She and Elon are on the same team.
I think it was just a light-hearted joke.
> Four years into the job, Shotwell had lunch with a co-worker who had just joined the then-startup company SpaceX. They walked by the cubicle of CEO Elon Musk. “I said, ‘Oh, Elon, nice to meet you. You really need a new business developer,’” Shotwell recalls. “It just popped out. I was bad. It was very rude.”
> Or just bold enough to capture Musk’s attention. He called her later that day in 2002 and recruited her to be vice president of business development, his seventh employee. She wrestled with the decision. “The history of startup rocket companies isn’t exactly great,” explains Hughes, SpaceX senior vice president and general counsel. “This was not necessarily the safest play.”