Could Starship Be The New Concorde?

Vote for this video by social sharing!
The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare:

Modern airplanes are now more efficient than ever. But this efficiency has come at the cost of longer flight times. This video looks at how Concorde ultimately failed and whether Starship could overcome the same issues and take over the airline industry.

C-Bass Productions –
Pratt & Whitney –

Tags: starship, concorde, earth to earth, flights, spacex, new york, london, airplane, aircraft, rockets, elon musk, engines, raptor, physics, science

  1. Fabio Ferreira Gomes


  2. GenHipp

    Wait you still believe in this?

  3. Paul Kersey

    “all the enterteinment we need in flight” dude, your needs bar is so low

  4. William Sheehan

    I loved the numbers. Great video and thank you for this.

  5. Crazy Monkey

    Moves people quickly? Makes loud noises? Occasionally blows up?

  6. nightlightabcd

    When you are comparing the Concord to the Starship, you are actually referring to the Booster, or the Super Heavy Booster, that the Starship does not need for point to point on earth! The Starship, passenger version, it’s self will have to have all the amenities of the Concord and much more complex, due to the vertical, horizontal at the edge of space and then vertical again to land on a dime!
    It may not even have a pilot onboard!

  7. TechRush

    *No, just no*. Here’s the list of problems:

    – No company pursuing fossil fuel transport vehicles today
    – No country willing to land an ICBM machine to their territory
    – Nobody wants to suffer 3G acceleration just to attend a business meeting

    I want Starship to be a feasible and fully reusable rocket. But don’t use it to transport people Earth-to-Earth

  8. Jaleel Grove

    Wouldn’t passengers need to undergo special training and be physically fit otherwise they’d just black out from excessive G’s? Plus the tickets would be super expensive.

  9. Jaleel Grove

    No one talks about price

  10. Amin

    This is a dream but who knows.. If they really can make it work, it will change travel forever. We are at least a decade away. Let’s see how our future turns out..

  11. IAmTheAce5

    Hey Gramps, get ready for 3G acceleration!

  12. Smee Self

    Starship hasn’t even made orbit yet, it could be a revolution or a junkheap. Hold your horses.

  13. Steve Plegge

    This just in: ALL jet engines get ALL their thrust from burning fuel.

  14. Raptorman0909

    The Super Heavy Booster needs 3400 metric tonnes of propellant not counting what the passenger section, Starship needs. The largest commercial airliner in the world, the Airbus A-380, has a max fuel load of about 250 tonnes so the propellant load of just the booster is more than 10 times as much with a passenger capacity about one fifth as much. No doubt the rocket would get you there quicker, if you didn’t count the time you need to board and have the rocket fueled but consuming more than 50x as much propellant per passenger is hardly the wise choice given the environmental impact. And, even if you take Elon’s word that it will cost only a few million per launch, a laughable figure if ever there was one, the cost per passenger even if that was true would still be unsustainable. Let’s say $5M per launch and 100 passengers that works out to $50K per passenger per flight so a round trip ticket, assuming no profit, would be more like $100K. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

  15. Brijesh Singh

    The thing Is a cargo starship may cost 40million(Elon eastimate) to manufacture but a pressurised crew one will be many times more complex

  16. Andrew Elley

    Average people cannot fly onboard rockets, the G forces could become lethal with medical complications
    The cost would simply be too high to sustainably operate
    Rockets are significantly more dangerous than even the Concorde

  17. Hamidi Maqtal

    Do you know how many people take business, first class, and premium economy? Why would you spend hours for your only holiday in years or only holiday in a year when you can pay 10-15% more and be there in 29 minutes!

  18. paolo11x11

    I’m surprised this is even a question – it was immediately obvious to anyone capable of gluing two thoughts together that this would never be workable. Isn’t this a years-old press release, anyway?

  19. Future Warships

    all it takes is 1 rocket to explode killing 100 people, its gonna massively effect the whole space travel industry just like the hindenburg did. I dont think its worth it really

  20. thisiszaphod

    The US were always jealous of Concorde.
    If she had been American designed, manufactured.and operated, we would never hear the last of it.
    Starship is Starship.
    Concorde is Concorde,
    A sizeable number of those who used it, had their tickets paid for by business.
    I fail to see why 850 business passengers for example, (a figure I think is way too optimistic) would need to travel so fast around the globe, now we have the internet.
    What it will underline is that if you are poor, nobody wants to know you – including Elon – so this progress in flight will once again be exclusive to the idle rich.

  21. CinemaClips

    You forgot to mention the high-g forces of Starship compared to Concorde thus making the flight uncomfortable. This would rule out a large section of the population especially the sick and elderly.
    Its pollution would be way worse because the pollutants would be released at higher altitudes. The Concore faced protests from environmentalists because it released its pollutants at high altitudes yet Starship will fly at higher altitudes while burning even more fuel.
    Starship will be extremely loud during take off and landing thus making it necessary to have remote launch sites. This would make travel to and from the launch sites way harder thus less accessibility unlike Concorde whose airports were close to cities. Concorde also faced backlash for its noise pollution.
    And finally the political problems of flying ICBMs between countries. Russia and China won’t allow a ICBM to land in its country. Also both Russia and China have the capability of building a Starship thus the US won’t allow ICBMs from hostile countries to land in their territory. If you think of comparing ICBMs to airlines, don’t forget that airplanes were flying between countries before nuclear weapons existed, this is why I don’t see a country allowing an ICBM from a hostile country capable of carrying a nuclear weapon to land in its territory.

    As you said, going fast isn’t always the best thing. I’m not saying that going slow is also the best thing either. Cargo ships are going slower while high speed rail is going faster.

  22. Daniel DC88

    Someone’s been watching too much veritasium with the number of thumbnail and title changes

  23. Futurist

    It would take more than 50 years to reach this age of airliners because safety are the top notch of standard, at least starship needed to take around 5k passenger as a test with minimum death ratio around 20 percent if so then our dream would be closer than what we think of

  24. pawsryanTV

    Planes will probably die out completely within the next century

  25. Bhargav Sarma

    Pretty frustrating how people can watch pointless videos on youtube but not netflix level documentaries like this one

  26. Blame Yourself

    “Could this be the new concorde?” Could it be that people should perhaps start thinking again?

  27. Salkinstein 4K

    I think the force the passengers need to endure during the rocket start is just to much. A normal person can’t easily withstand this g‘s without training.

  28. Siddharth S

    Planes would beat rockets in every field within the atmosphere unless, its space.
    And comparing the Concorde with a rocket isnt fair. We actually dont know the emissions of Starship as companies try to keep those confidential. So, its more likely to be greater than 800 tons per flight ( seems to generous)…

    Sitting on 1000 tons of propellant is too risky to kill all 850 passengers at once.
    There’ a reason why hypersonic and quiet supersonic planes are in development. They will be cheaper, super comfortable, faster, bajillion times safer than rockets and more environmental friendly than rockets.They neednt re enter every single time causing super high g-forces. We dont want 25,000 kmph speeds at the cost of health, safety , comfort and reliability.

    Using Starship for interplanetary movt is a great one, but not Earth to Earth. Everything looks great for fiction and fantasy until one sees and faces reality.

  29. Sarvad Paygude

    Well, the people are atleast getting more than 4 minutes in space and the price is not 250,000$ right……………….. like it is space tourism but while going to your desired place and cause they are getting a huge window to look out and maybe some space to float too………….

  30. Dhanush sai

    Warning : Thunderf00t watched your video

  31. levet byck

    wtf!? – are we arguing about rockets used as transportation between countries..
    – is this about trying to make a realistic view of the future (a process.. to get the sources right)

    – the motivation that leads to these absurd stories
    – something about getting access to confidential information and making a story along the process (as i tried to explain before)

  32. TheDisabledGamer

    Answer to the title of the video …………….. FK NO !

  33. randi5465

    I hate to tell you but a 777 uses 29 metric tons of fuel producing 19 tons of CO2. Your tons per passenger calculation is 10 times too high. And 850 passengers on Starship is way too big.

  34. RukaIsTooCute

    I’m all in for SpaceX and Starship, and while Starship Earth-to-Earth sounds like a great idea, when you take the legal stuff and logistics into account, it would be nearly impossible to implement. Adam Something made a great video discussing how Starship Earth-to-Earth is not possible. I’ll link it here. Hope you watch it!

  35. Gerard

    I don’t think Starship will ever be a practical and safe successor of Concorde, but maybe the Boom Overture will (terrible company name).

  36. NetRunner

    Pure vaporware. Elon musk is the new Elizabeth Holmes.

  37. Macebob Kasson

    Your videos are my favorite from the space community! They are the best animated. Most planned. Most thought-provoking. Most exciting :) Thank you again!

  38. John Wick

    Awesome. Please make a collab with The exoplanets channel.

  39. doltsbane

    Business people who have to attend a meeting in person are not going to patronize an airline that has to cancel flights if there are crosswinds or thunderstorms in the vicinity, and those launch platforms in city harbors are nonsense, the acoustic pressure from all those Raptor engines would rattle every window in the city (if not shatter them).

  40. Alvar Lagerlöf

    850 people in a starship?

  41. NPC 69541

    But you can fly over cities!

  42. etbadaboum

    I wish Starship the same aesthetics destiny as Concorde (it is looking good already) but not its financial destiny!

  43. Samurai

    A rocket can produce an acceleration of greater than 5g. Can you handle 5g? Absolutely not.
    That’s why starship cannot beat airplanes for commercial travel. Because starship for commercial travel will not become a reality.

  44. John Doe

    Damn burn Boom Supersonic

  45. Carson Baker

    Don’t say “Can this be the new Concorde” in the title which is so clickbait sounding, but stick with “Can starship be the new Concorde”

  46. Omaha Ken

    I was not informed of Starship, probably contributing to my not catching on until about 4-5 mins in that Starship was the subject of the video. I needed more intro to the Starship history and other facts.

  47. Anshu Nayyar

    I have ran out of words to describe how amazing your videos are. Just commenting to give you a better reach!!!!

  48. TheLazy0ne

    Sure! It could… But it won’t. It’s in the same category with Fusion power plants, Nuclear airplanes and Hyperloop. 😂

  49. Attila TheHUN

    This is the first video on this channel which I have the feeling isn’t particularly objective. It’s missing a lot of information why Starship isn’t suitable for flights like that. The whole video feels like a SpaceX commercial.

  50. IPilotheHATREDCopter

    Simple answer is no. Maube for the duper ultra rich but demand will be so low that its not even worth it. Too many moving parts, too much fuel used for way too little gained. Better off just investing into maglev and Vaclev trains to achieve same results for less. Its like those heli taxi companies that sprung up in the 80s in big cities and literally went bankrupt immedieately. Too much risk too little reward.

  51. Michel Bruns

    7:00 a dream? more like a nightmare

  52. Bryan Guzik

    Even tho it is complete fiction, when it comes to certain propositions I find the following *quotation instructive; “I think there is a worldwide need for maybe 5 computers”. It still contains a solid lesson. That if the past century tells us anything, it’s to not be surprised.
    I find Mars more likely than “rocket commute”, but who knows. I just look to my grandfather’s (one) lifetime. Electric light, automobile, telephone, airplane, radio, world war, television, a/c, jet airplane, rocket, satellite, moon, internet, etc.

  53. Michel Bruns

    this concept of “star ship as a plane” has way too many issues and wouldnt safe a lot of time when you include the ship and boarding, it wouldnt be very comfortable when you experience that many g’s and so on and would be more expensive

  54. dexon777

    there is no way 875 people able fit in a starship.

  55. Donald Boughton

    Would you want a misguided missile raining down on London. We have experienced this before viz V2 It would be safer to land these in the sea offshore. to the west of Wales.

  56. David May

    Assuming all challenges for building Starship are conquered, the advantage of travelling by Starship (once we all get past the novelty) would be the speed at which the ship traverses the planet. However, taking 30 minutes to go from New York to London is wasted when the flight gets cancelled for a mere excess of high altitude wind speed (for example). Weather related delays or cancellations is a common occurrence for today’s rocket launches. SpaceX is going to have to solve the issue of weather interference at least to the point that rockets can handle weather at either end of the flight to the same degree that airplanes do. This is not a trivial requirement.

  57. Deepak Kumar

    See Thunderf00ts videos about earth based rocket transport.

  58. Minati Murmu

    Seems like u also love Aviation and Astronomy like me

  59. shaun

    I very much doubt my 71 year old mother would tolerate a ballistic entry then flip maneuver to land…🤮

  60. foxdown

    everyone now puts snapshots in their videos.. a gaming vlogger started it now everywhere

  61. John Harms

    Using rockets for LOE transport will be horribly expensive, horrifically dirty, and largely impractical with how far off-shore you need to land. If Elon Musk wants to do a shuttle service, he better start getting to work on a moon base, because I just can’t see countries allowing regular flights, nor can I see it becoming affordable as we also work on supersonic passenger liners again.

  62. Sajana Vithana Pathirana

    Yes. It will likely be just like Concorde.

    Fast, inefficient and noisy.

    (PS: I really want Starship to succeed, and hopefully it will soon carry humans to Mars, but it isn’t designed to carry people from point A to B on the same planet)

  63. Matt Haas

    As always this video is really high quality and it has lots of amazing info, but I feel like it’s particularly optimistic towards starship… Lots of very important issues weren’t mentioned at all, and the numbers you provided for cost and passenger count seem very generous

  64. Zakariya mohamed

    I don’t know about starship being the new Concord but I know it could be the new and accessible vomit commit merged with Virgin galactic spaceship.

  65. Hamza Mahmood

    Short answer: No
    Long answer: No it simply can’t. Rockets can never be like planes

  66. MulletMan

    Stupid idea, it will never work

  67. curious life

    Wait how it actually plays out. Revisit this comment in 10 years and leave me an answer😉

  68. Bolt

    Short answer-
    Long answer-

  69. moumouzel


  70. 77777Carlo

    Many wrong infos, airplanes get retired because aluminum has no limit of fatigue life, meaning no matter how much you overengineer it for the stresses it’s going through, at a certain number of cycles it will fail, while stainless steel at a certain point reaches an infinite fatigue life. Starship has to be refurbished for other reasons, but the “airframe” is virtually eternal

  71. Queeg

    Concords original ticket price was quite low, but not many people wanted to fly on it. As soon as they put the prices up (alot) uptake was increased.

  72. Hdhnswk

    Primal Space, more like Primal SpaceX

  73. Friendly Rough Ai

    Earth to earth obviously not gona happen but earth to moon maybe

  74. Eric Alvaro

    Pretty good video, although, maybe it would have been interesting if you had mention the fact that Starship can success even if it fails to replace the airplane as a passenger transport vehicle of choice. Like, Starship can be used to transport payload to space, and even from earth to earth itself and yadda yadda. I think they were pretty smart at keeping the whole “well, we can transport passengers” as somewhat of a B-Side in the whole project, as an extra.

  75. Painsin

    Does anyone else get flicker?

  76. nkronert

    The air travel industry is scrapping it’s biggest planes because they’re not getting them filled with passengers anymore. Good luck finding 1000 passengers that will need to do the same trip from A to B on the same day.

  77. Adam Kaufman

    How the hell are you going to stuff 850 people into Starship’s cargo section? That seems wildly optimistic, as does the cost per flight. As much as I want Starship to succeed, I doubt the capability and price will look anything like that in the next decade or two.

  78. Filip Tůma

    Earth to Earth Starship is bad idea, it’s too loud => it has to start several kilometres from coast, so you have to carry people on boat, it’s not for everyone who can handle high gees, and planes are significantly safer than rockets.

    Edit: and just imagine thousands of rockets launch every day instead of planes, it’s CO2 nightmare with climate change.

  79. MitchCyan

    Why aren’t they using electric planes yet?

  80. Geography Nuts

    Probably faster than Concorde, but the problem is not technology, it is the red tape from government and resistance from existing industry. Environment Impact study is important but they will use it as a means to stop or slow down.

  81. newsgetsold

    2:42 Wait, 700 tonnes at 0.8 per passenger = 875 passengers. Is that right?

  82. Anakin Skywalker

    There is already a supersonic passenger plane in development. SpaceX might have other options but it won’t be for another 10 years at least

  83. James Rapp

    Cheers for the video mate 😎 👌

  84. Sopota

    Sure, it will be a disaster. Planes are way more reliable than rockets, even boosting it by 10x they will be a lot riskier. When the first commercial flight blows up the project will be dead.

  85. Banana Tree's Nemesis

    In the way that it failed greatly and burned a ton of money?! Absofruitly

  86. RogerM

    Really doubt the Starship will have any Commercial Earth to Earth applications, for vast reasons. Lack of comfort on flight with the high G-forces, safety concerns on landing, time spent arriving to the launching platform over Sea, noise from the shock wave, prone to Weather delays, high price tickets to justify the launching infraestruture and staff. Affordable flights in Supersonic commercial planes, would make more economical sense. Also the 1%, tend to flight in private jets.

  87. unclvinny

    How many G’s would a starship passenger need to be able to handle? How close to a city could a starship land to not deafen people? (That was one of the things that led to the Concorde’s downfall, I think?)

  88. Blaze Gaming

    Make a dedicated vedio on gaganyaan plzz 🇮🇳

  89. Guille Calahorra

    It could work if you don’t take the legal stuff into account. Who would approve a gigantic missile full of people to land so close to a highly dense populated area like New York. Also the sound

  90. Johnmark Jmc

    Star ship will happen in our time… Don’t bet againt Elon…. We will soon call star ship the safest means of transportation

  91. NPHfann

    No, it isn’t

  92. Doodle Boi

    Why does Starship look small if we’re talking about taking more people to space?

  93. Why do I keep reading com

    850 passengers? Where are you getting these numbers?

  94. Mike O'Barr

    Nice video, Starship has no point to point use case. The per flight price will never be 1 million dollars. They can’t fly the Falcon that cheap.

  95. Jordan

    SpaceX is going to go bankrupt once Kessler syndrome hits and Starlink is the main culprit of space collisions right now

  96. Devin

    It is not designed for earth travel, but it could be used to boost extra sales tbh

  97. Doodle Boi

    Well we just have to see.

  98. Biniam Gaming

    I really hope Elon’s serious about letting regular people ride Starships. Going to space is number 1 on my bucket list

  99. ⁤⁤DramaticBatu

    Did somebody said CONCORDE?
    concorde is my fav plane lol

  100. Primal Space

    Do you think Starship could ever be like Concorde? Or even better? – Shoutout to Skillshare for supporting this vid, get a one month free trial by visiting:

Comments are closed.