Honda successfully launched and landed its own reusable rocket
Technology
169
Beiträge
106
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
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
-
This is the first I have heard they were doing this. Makes spacex accomplishments less impressive. Fuck elon
You have it the wrong way round. SpaceX's accomplishments are impressive despite Elon.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Honda is cool they build robotics and the best motorbikes in the world per cost
-
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.
That's a fair point. The alternative is taking things up to a "graveyard orbit" somewhere between LEO and GSO, to a particularly unpopular altitude, where nobody's fighting for real estate. Satellites can sit there indefinitely, you could even clump them up in a big ball, the tiny pull of gravity they have is actually enough to keep them bunched together.
The only problem with that plan is that it takes a lot of energy to raise an orbit that much, I'm not sure how to make that feasible.
-
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.
Again, the only possible player that could do that any time soon is blue origin/Amazon.
Stoke Space is working on a fully reusable rocket though, I'm really impressed with their rocket concept, some very smart design choices were made. They do have working hardware and have demonstrated their core engine. But I have no idea how close they are to first launch tests, I expect it will be a while
-
Honda is cool they build robotics and the best motorbikes in the world per cost
other motorbike, mix up at the factory, enjoy your rocket
-
There’s a YouTube channel called BPS Space where this guy spent 7 years learning how to land a model rocket space x style. He talked about how much you can learn about real rocket science even from a small model.
This is the same guy.
-
Again, the only possible player that could do that any time soon is blue origin/Amazon.
Stoke Space is working on a fully reusable rocket though, I'm really impressed with their rocket concept, some very smart design choices were made. They do have working hardware and have demonstrated their core engine. But I have no idea how close they are to first launch tests, I expect it will be a while
Your original comment said 2050, which is a long way off. SpaceX's first launch attempt was in 2006, their first successful launch was in 2008, their first successful recovery of a rocket in reusable condition was in 2015, and first reused a rocket in 2017. If they can make progress on that kind of timeline, why wouldn't someone else be able to?
-
You mean like Starship?
I plead the 5th....
-
That's a fair point. The alternative is taking things up to a "graveyard orbit" somewhere between LEO and GSO, to a particularly unpopular altitude, where nobody's fighting for real estate. Satellites can sit there indefinitely, you could even clump them up in a big ball, the tiny pull of gravity they have is actually enough to keep them bunched together.
The only problem with that plan is that it takes a lot of energy to raise an orbit that much, I'm not sure how to make that feasible.
The only problem with that plan is that it takes a lot of energy to raise an orbit that much, I'm not sure how to make that feasible.
Lowering the orbit takes energy, too, unless you're relying solely on atmospheric drag.
-
Again, the only possible player that could do that any time soon is blue origin/Amazon.
Stoke Space is working on a fully reusable rocket though, I'm really impressed with their rocket concept, some very smart design choices were made. They do have working hardware and have demonstrated their core engine. But I have no idea how close they are to first launch tests, I expect it will be a while
Arianespace has fallen behind, but they're not out of the picture. They're still by far the largest competitor to SpaceX, and they're aiming for their 7th generation Ariane to be a reusable design.
Arianespace is an Airbus and Safran subsidiary, so it's not like they don't have the engineering oomph behind them.
-
Your original comment said 2050, which is a long way off. SpaceX's first launch attempt was in 2006, their first successful launch was in 2008, their first successful recovery of a rocket in reusable condition was in 2015, and first reused a rocket in 2017. If they can make progress on that kind of timeline, why wouldn't someone else be able to?
If they can make progress on that kind of timeline, why wouldn't someone else be able to?
That's a fair point. Keep in mind though, it takes a while to get a whole constellation up in orbit and get all the kinks worked out, Starlink was first usable in 2020. So in total it took them in the area of 14 years from start to finish. It's also worth noting, that nobody in the space industry has really ever been able to move as fast as spaceX, they're something of an anomaly, not the norm.
So could a new company do it in 14 years? Yeah, that's definitely possible. It could happen by 2039, but I wouldn't put money on it. 25 years seems more likely.
-
And Hyundai is making hydrogen powered tanks, what a world. I wonder if hydrogen fuels poses any unique risks as compared to petrol.
Well, they're DEVELOPING them. They're not MAKING them yet.
-
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.And when SpaceX does it with real full size rockets and they explode scattering debris and chemicals everywhere, the nearby towns pay the price.
I don't see any towns being decimated by Honda's approach.
-
The only problem with that plan is that it takes a lot of energy to raise an orbit that much, I'm not sure how to make that feasible.
Lowering the orbit takes energy, too, unless you're relying solely on atmospheric drag.
Lowering the orbit takes energy, too, unless you're relying solely on atmospheric drag.
Sure, but you can safely deorbit something from Leo with like 100 m/s of Delta v, you just need to dip into the atmosphere and then drag does the rest. Getting something to a sufficiently high graveyard orbit is more like 2000 Dv split between two burns. You'd need to stay with the trash for half an orbit and then do the second half of your burn, and then presumably you'd need to travel back to your original point, costing another 2000 Dv.
All together, going up could take 40x more propellant than going down.
