Honda successfully launched and landed its own reusable rocket
Technology
162
Beiträge
101
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Hypothetically, we could terraform Venus. At the very least, it shares a lot of the issues that we're trying to fix on Earth, just dialled up to 11 - its main problems are that it's way too hot, the atmosphere has way too much carbon in it (96.5% vs Earth's 0.04%), and the atmosphere has way too much sulfur (0.015% vs Earth's 0.00000002%, making the atmosphere highly acidic). So if for example scientists had an idea for causing a chain reaction in a planetary atmosphere that rapidly sequestered all atmospheric carbon but were worried about unknown strength or side effects, instead of testing it on Earth where it could kill us all, they could test it on Venus where any failures would have no serious consequences. And if it worked, not only would it mean that we fix climate change on Earth but we partially terraform Venus into the bargain.
Venus has roughly similar gravity to Earth and has a ferrous core which could hypothetically be turned molten (and therefore ferromagnetic) to provide the same kind of magnetosphere that Earth's core does. Mars has neither of these things and would therefore never be able to sustain human life naturally - Venus potentially could. On Mars, the atmosphere is just one of many obstacles. On Venus it's THE obstacle. Solve the atmosphere, you solve Venus.
Hypothetically, we could terraform Venus.
Mars is the best option we have, which is why I mentioned that. Venus already has selfenforcing runaway global warming, and we can't even land a probe there, because the environment is extremely hostile.
Mars is by far the easier option. -
That is not why starship fails. Starship fails because like everything that Elon does lately it emphasizes style over practicality. Starship is a very badly designed rocket that looks cool to Elon. Not unlike the Cyber truck which has been an abject failure in every way possible.
You are missing the point that size makes a difference. Obviously SpaceX has the technology to do what Honda did, but SpaceX can do ti with a real rocket.
But they can't do it with the bigger Starship rocket. Scale matters. -
It's actually interesting how similar rockets and jet engines are. You could think of a rocket as a jet (or sometimes two jet engines) where the afterburner is always on and the air intake is replaced by an O2 tank..
a rocket is a wingless airplane IMO
Edit: with oxygen tanks, as you said.
-
Imo it's a good thing tho. Spreading our civilization across multiple planets is the only way to guarantee long long term success. Obviously we should also fix the climate change issue (and many others). But still, being spread across the solar system would give our species redundancy. An extinction event on earth like a large meteor strike would no longer be the end.
While what you said is true,
i guess that most people's motivation is rather the economic benefits. Think of it this way:
The 1960s space race created jobs all across the US and inspired a generation of scientists.
Mars settlement could do the same, but bigger. At least that's the idea.
-
The issue is not going up, it's going over. If we only cared about the private sector getting people into space, that happened on a fully reusable vehicle twenty years ago.
The problem is getting things to stay in space. Not trying to Elon-stan here, but getting a rocket into orbit is many fold more difficult than just getting into space.
Yeah, if by "going over", you mean accelerating in the horizontal direction, then you're right.
Just to illustrate this: Consider we want to put 1 kg of mass into orbit.
First, we have to raise it by 100 km. That requires 1e6 J = 1 MJ of energy (formula is m*g*h).
Then, we have to accelerate it sideways, to a speed of 8 km/s. The energy to do that is 32 MJ (formula is ½*m*v²).
So, most of the energy (97%) is actually in the sideways movement.
-
How does Helium fit through places that Hydrogen can't even though its bigger? Is it because Hydrogen would react with things along the way while Helium won't?
I suspect it's because the hydrogen molecules are bigger than a single helium atom, which doesn't form molecules (since it's a noble gas).
So the hydrogen molecule only seeps through if it's oriented right (since the hydrogen molecule is a stick-shaped molecule).
-
Well they have been making crotch rockets for a long time.
isn't that Hitachi?
-
This post did not contain any content.
The Top Gear Reliant Robin launch reached 3000ft / 900m, although they were unable to stick the landing.
-
Unfortunately, the next competitor will be Amazon...
And then we'll see what happens next, getting a whole constellation up is no small feat, I can't see a third company getting a system working before 2050.
Also with starlink even one company's constellation is causing issues with astronomers and launches.
How bad will it be if there are 5-6 different companies with their own network floating around up there. And then other countries with their own network.
-
What the F is every corporation's boner with rockets?
Reusable rockets, in particular.
Imagine having a reusable car in a world where they were all disposable.
-
This post did not contain any content.
My buddy’s 2 million mile ‘95 civic says this is a sure bet
-
You are missing the point that size makes a difference. Obviously SpaceX has the technology to do what Honda did, but SpaceX can do ti with a real rocket.
But they can't do it with the bigger Starship rocket. Scale matters.Size is only a proof of logistics. Not tech. Physics don't change fundamentally between 6 meters and 120 meters. You learn a lot from scale modeling without the added costs. Starship's real challenge is actually the logistics necessary to fulfill the desired specifications and experimenting with engineering to reach the scale. The most innovative aspect of Starship would be orbital refueling, and they aren't there since the thing hasn't reached orbit yet. SpaceX problem right now is insisting on high turnover engineering, which doesn't work at scale without heavy costs, because it is a logistic problem, not a engineering problem.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Honda giving a whole new meaning to crotch rocket.
Oh wait, it's an actual rocket! -
Unfortunately, the next competitor will be Amazon...
And then we'll see what happens next, getting a whole constellation up is no small feat, I can't see a third company getting a system working before 2050.
The satellite constellation is the natural consequence of cheaper rockets. It's a true paradigm shift, but the pioneer in this case has only the moat of being able to spend less money per launch. If someone else can deliver payloads to low earth orbit for less than $2,000/kg, then they'll easily be able to launch a Starlink competitor.
-
Size is only a proof of logistics. Not tech. Physics don't change fundamentally between 6 meters and 120 meters. You learn a lot from scale modeling without the added costs. Starship's real challenge is actually the logistics necessary to fulfill the desired specifications and experimenting with engineering to reach the scale. The most innovative aspect of Starship would be orbital refueling, and they aren't there since the thing hasn't reached orbit yet. SpaceX problem right now is insisting on high turnover engineering, which doesn't work at scale without heavy costs, because it is a logistic problem, not a engineering problem.
Physics don't change fundamentally between 6 meters and 120 meters
Yes it does. Mass to strength ratio of structural components changes with scale. So does the thrust to mass ratio of a rocket and its fuel. So does heat dissipation (affected by ratio of surface area to mass).
And I don't know shit about fluid dynamics, but I'm skeptical that things scale cleanly, either.
Scaling upward will encounter challenges not apparent at small sizes. That goes for everything from engineering bridges to buildings to cars to boats to aircraft to spacecraft.
-
It's proof of tech. It'd be stupid and wasteful to do all the tests on a full size rocket.
You mean like Starship?
-
That is not why starship fails. Starship fails because like everything that Elon does lately it emphasizes style over practicality. Starship is a very badly designed rocket that looks cool to Elon. Not unlike the Cyber truck which has been an abject failure in every way possible.
My personal opinion is that it fails because SpaceX, like a lot of space startups, embrace a silicon valley coding mindset of 'move fast and break things', which results on them spending much more of their time and effort on testing than on design. Make a change, test, make a subsequent change, test. It gets them to a working prototype more quickly than legacy space/ defense companies. However, there's no emphasis on modeling or design, which is problematic for solving complex problems that haven't been solved for 50 years already.
-
Also with starlink even one company's constellation is causing issues with astronomers and launches.
How bad will it be if there are 5-6 different companies with their own network floating around up there. And then other countries with their own network.
Yeah, it's a bad situation. I'm against monopolies, but I also see how filling the sky with redundant satellites is a terrible plan, so I don't like the idea of lots of competition either.
I think low orbit satellite communications is a pretty awesome concept. It has the potential to become like a second Internet backbone, but a backbone that can bring data directly to users without the additional router hops that local ISPs introduce. On paper, it's amazingly efficient and can distribute service to all of the world... But in practice the business and management side is deeply problematic. One company should absolutely not be in charge of global Internet service. And one country would not be any better.
The only solution I can see is to make it safe and feasible to have way more satellites operating in low earth orbit. I'm really not sure what that solution might look like...
Here's an off-the-cuff idea though: One solution could be an extremely robust low earth orbit maintenance and "pruning" system. All satellites would need to be monitored by third parties. And those third parties would need the authority and ability to quickly deorbit (prune) any satellite that deviates from its exact expected orbit. If satellites can ensure no deviation from their path and can safely maneuver to avoid collisions, it could be possible for many more satellites to safely share an orbital altitude.
-
Yeah, it's a bad situation. I'm against monopolies, but I also see how filling the sky with redundant satellites is a terrible plan, so I don't like the idea of lots of competition either.
I think low orbit satellite communications is a pretty awesome concept. It has the potential to become like a second Internet backbone, but a backbone that can bring data directly to users without the additional router hops that local ISPs introduce. On paper, it's amazingly efficient and can distribute service to all of the world... But in practice the business and management side is deeply problematic. One company should absolutely not be in charge of global Internet service. And one country would not be any better.
The only solution I can see is to make it safe and feasible to have way more satellites operating in low earth orbit. I'm really not sure what that solution might look like...
Here's an off-the-cuff idea though: One solution could be an extremely robust low earth orbit maintenance and "pruning" system. All satellites would need to be monitored by third parties. And those third parties would need the authority and ability to quickly deorbit (prune) any satellite that deviates from its exact expected orbit. If satellites can ensure no deviation from their path and can safely maneuver to avoid collisions, it could be possible for many more satellites to safely share an orbital altitude.
Deorbiting is all well and good, but more and more we're finding that these satellites contain chemicals that are very disruptive to the ozone layer. It's going to be CFCs all over again, but with even more corporate capture of government.
-
It seems crazy that a company that's only really known for cars, motorbikes, tuning forks, heat pumps, brake pads, pens, tractors, fertilizer, display panels, outboard motors, pneumatic systems, oil tankers, furniture, locomotives, bricks, solar panels, ATVs, generators, hot air balloons, dinghies, hydrogen fuel cells, submarines, crop dusters, jet engines, cultivators, hedge trimmers, lawnmowers, precision optics and robots would suddenly pivot to rockets.
Also a very capable downhill bike that was using a gearbox well before it got popular
