Agreed, it brings the story home. What I most like about this news is that Honda has joined Blue Origin and SpaceX in demonstrating a complete "hop" (all though my all time favorite is the "ring of fire" video SpaceX did.)
But it also illustrates that I've seen in the Bay Area time and time again, which is that once you demonstrate that something is doable (as SpaceX has) It opens the way for other capital to create competitive systems.
At Google, where I worked for a few years, it was interesting to see how Google's understanding of search (publicly disclosed), and the infrastructure to host it (kept secret) kept it comfortably ahead of competitors until the design space was exhausted. At which point Google stopped moving forward and everyone else asymptotically approached their level of understanding and mastery.
I see the same thing happening to SpaceX. As other firms master the art of the reusable booster, SpaceX's grasp on the launch services market weakens. Just as Google's grasp of the search market weakens. Or Sun's grasp of the server market weakened. When it becomes possible to buy launch services from another vendor which are comparable (not necessarily cheaper, just comparable) without the baggage of the damage Elon has done, SpaceX will be in a tougher spot.
It also helps me to understand just how much SpaceX needs Starship in order to stay on top of the market.
Some folks will no doubt see this as casting shade on SpaceX, I assure you it is not. What SpaceX's engineering teams have accomplished remains amazing and they deserve their success. It is just someone who has been through a number of technology curves noting how similar the they play out over their lifetimes.
Having witnessed first hand how DEC felt that Sun's "toy computers" would never eclipse DEC in the Server business, and watched as United Launch Alliance dismissed Falcon 9 as something that would never seriously challenge their capabilities, it feels almost prophetic to watch SpaceX's competitors emerge.
> At Google, where I worked for a few years, it was interesting to see how Google's understanding of search (publicly disclosed), and the infrastructure to host it (kept secret) kept it comfortably ahead of competitors until the design space was exhausted. At which point Google stopped moving forward and everyone else asymptotically approached their level of understanding and mastery.
This is the "markets mature and commodify over time" thing.
What companies are supposed to do in those cases are one of two things. One, keep investing the money into the market or related ones so you keep having an advantage. Or two, if there is nothing relevant and adjacent to productively invest in, return it to shareholders as dividends or share buybacks so they can invest it in some other unrelated market.
But space seems like it would be the first one big time because of the amount of stuff that still has yet to be developed. Starlink was an obvious example of something in that nature, and then it's going to be things like "put datacenters in orbit so you can use solar without worrying about clouds or nighttime" and "build robots that can do semi-autonomous work in places far enough away for both human presence and round trip latency to be an inconvenience" etc.
We'd be living in Star Trek by the time they'd run out of something more to do.
I also won't forget the marketing department at the camera company I worked at, dismissing the iPhone, when it first came out (it ended up eating their lunch).
>once you demonstrate that something is doable (as SpaceX has) It opens the way for other capital to create competitive systems.
In the abstract I agree, but there's zero chance Honda is getting into the orbital launch business. This is a recruiting stunt (and probably to help push for a bailout from Japan), not a real product.
>buy launch services from another vendor... without the baggage of the damage Elon has done
This misjudges what their customers care about.
Can anyone point to a single launch contract cancelled because of "baggage?" Big media would no doubt gleefully shout that story from the hilltops, but I haven't seen it.
>it feels almost prophetic to watch SpaceX's competitors emerge.
Prophesy, but also a healthy dose of wish fulfillment.
All Goliaths eventually fall, but they have an annoying tendency of not doing so on the timelines we might hope for. Just look at Microsoft in the 90s.
"The smart cow problem is the idea that a technically difficult task may only need to be solved once, by one person, for less technically proficient group members to accomplish the task using an easily repeatable method. "
I think you are to optimistic, what you say is true in principle, but it will take much longer. Vertical landing isn't really the technical challenge. Many small vehicles have demonstrated this over the years, including before SpaceX.
The challenge with orbital booster reuse is getting them threw the atmosphere intact and ready to land and then be reused quickly. And do that while being optimized enough to carry payload. That is the actual challenge. And that's just the first, then you need to build everything to be able to do this 5-10 times.
Only one other company then SpaceX has achieved getting a booster back at all, and that was by dropping it into an ocean. RocketLab, and they so far as I know have never reflown a complete booster. BlueOrigin has never landed a complete booster. ULA and Arianespace aren't close.
Honda in particular is not a launch competitor and is very unlikely to be one in the future. Japan already has a pet rocket that they support that has low launch rates. Honda isn't just isn't a competitor in the launch sector, and I don't think they are even planning that.
BlueOrigin might emerge as a competitor, but its nothing like Sun (sun was profitable in the first year). BlueOrigin simply has an infinite money glitch, that almost no other company in history had. The amount of money BlueOrigin spent in the last 10 year is actually unbelievable, they at times had the same amount of people as SpaceX, while having near 0 revenue. By any rational evaluation BlueOrigin is completely non-viable as a company, any they are burning billions per year.
RocketLab will likely be a real competitor eventually, but they are pretty clearly positioning themselves at being Nr.2, not aiming for flight rates nearly in SpaceX territory. And they have a lot of technical risk left to clear.
At the moment SpaceX is moving forward faster then anybody else is catching up. Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy still run loops around everybody and nobody will challenge it for another 10 years at least, and that's assuming Falcon 9 operations don't improve.
Starship isn't needed for the launch market, but for their own constellation.
Great clean video link thanks, but I cant work out the scale, first it looks like a toy rocket, then from the distance shot it looks huge, like spaceX huge, and then landing it looks quite small again, especially with the lawn sprinklers.
But an impressively smooth landing regardless, and I would imagine maybe harder the smaller the rocket is.
It's much smaller than other suborbital hop vehicles. If it's 6.3 meters, the smallest Starhopper was 18 meters; Blue Shepherd 19 m; China's Hyperbola-2Y 17 m; the Zhuque-3 VTVL test vehicle 18.3 m. Also the Grasshopper from 2012 was 32 m and even 1993's DC-X was 12 m.
I'm accustomed to seeing large plumes of chemicals coming out the other end in my minds eye when I think about rocket launches. This looks "clean" coming out the exhaust.
Why is that? Is it due to the nature of chemicals it uses?
Soot means carbon-rich fuel, like RP1, and a very fuel-rich mix. Most launches I ever saw had basically zero soot, and a clean exhaust of a well-balanced fuel / oxidizer mix.
Military rockets, and solid-fuel boosters like the kind the Shuttles used to use, indeed produce very visible exhaust, because they use heavy fuels, and sometimes heavier oxidizers, like nitric acid. This is because they need to be in the fueled state for a long time, ready to launch in seconds; this excludes more efficient but finicky cryogenic fuels used by large commercial rockets.
The large plumes that you usually see the first few seconds when a rocket is blasting off a launch pad are mostly water vapor. The launch pad would be destroyed by the exhaust were it not cooled during the launch by large amounts of water, which gets evaporated instead of the concrete.
Several reasons. It's filmed in daylight, so any flame or exhaust will be less visible. The rocket engine is much smaller than anything that would go on an orbital booster, so there's less exhaust than what'd you see for an orbital launch. Also it's looks like it's a hydrolox rocket (using liquid hydrogen and oxygen as fuel), which has the least visible flame. The combustion product is almost entirely water vapor. Methalox (methane + liquid oxygen) is the next cleanest, which emits water, CO2, and a little bit of soot. Kerolox (RP-1 and oxygen) is the most common propellant used today, and it emits a significant amount of soot.
Solid boosters put out the most visible exhaust, as burning APCP[1] emits solid particles of metal oxides. Also some rockets (mostly Russian, Chinese, and Indian) use unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine + dinitrogen tetroxide, which emits a reddish-orange exhaust. Both compounds are toxic, as is the exhaust.
Most civilian rockets have solid strap-on boosters(actual technical term) that emit the signature thick white smokes, as well as leave contrails at high speeds. Neither would be visible for non-solid rockets at low speeds.
Such a smooth takeoff and landing all by by itself. I remember watching old sci-fi shows and the rocket would do that and I always thought "that doesn't make any sense". Now it does.
For some reason the landing of that reminded me of the Eagle from Space:1999 - there was something different in the ballistics of it compared to SpaceX and Blue Origin. Fantastic to see, thanks for the video link.
I wonder if that's the optimal design for VTOL rocket landers? Or is that more particular to smaller lighter rockets and eventually you need heavier duty options for bigger rockets?
Also the DC-X was eventually intended to be single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO). Do any of these reusable rockets plan on being SSTO? Whether from Space-X/Blue Origin or this or the Chinese ones? SSTO is where you're going to dramatically change the economics of rockets, as you now only have to worry about refueling when launching satellites, instead of using an expendable second stage..
Watching the video, when the rocket lifted-off, it stood on a couple small risers. When it landed, the risers were gone. Did someone run out there and grab them?
Despite the other comments, the landing spot is clearly the same as where it took off. Take a screenshot at 0:09 and one at 0:48 and you can see that it's most certainly the same pad. The camera has moved slightly to the left on the landing, that's all.
I don't think they moved or were taken. It appeared that the rocket took off from the corner of the pad and landed in the center, with one camera angle for the corner launch and one camera angle for the central landing. So, I assume the risers are still exactly where they were, they're just outside of the camera frame.
If you look at the landing shot, you can see that towards the corner are some markings for previous risers which were used for previous launches (or markings for future risers for future launches). The risers it launched from this time are just in a different corner.
It's liquid propellant being vented, the fuel is under extreme pressure so when its released it immediately expands to a gas. I don't know that Honda has said what their propellant is, but it's probably liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
First time I saw a domain named `honda`. On further research [1], I see that many companies have Top Level Domains of their name. Why did IANA/ICANN allow TLDs of company's names?
$185,000 application fee to apply for a new gTLD, plus maybe some auctions for gTLDs that multiple entities wanted, resulted in just under $60 million for ICANN.[2]
Apparently Google and Amazon were the most prolific appliers, with 101 and 76 applications respectively.[3]
Why not? It is useful for the company, ICANN gets a bunch of money, and it is not hurting anyone else (in fact it arguably benefits everyone else by causing big players to be more likely to stick things under their TLDs rather than monopolizing more .coms and other public TLDs).
> The name “Honda” has its roots in Japan, a country known for its rich traditions and cultural heritage. In Japanese, the name is written as 本田, which can be broken down into two characters: 本 (“hon”) meaning “origin” or “root” and 田 (“da” or “ta”) meaning “rice field” or “paddy field.” The combination of these characters conveys a sense of familial roots or origin tied to agricultural land, which was historically significant in Japan’s agrarian society.
> Traditionally, Japanese surnames like Honda were often linked to geographic locations or land ownership, reflecting the agricultural lifestyle of early Japan. Thus, the name Honda could have been used to denote a family that owned or worked on rice fields, marking them as stewards of the land.
Question why is it so easy today to build reusable rockets? Is it because the onboard cpu speed of the chips can solve more granular control problems with low latency?
>Forward thinking and risk-taking by SpaceX to further develop tech demonstrated by earlier efforts (DC-X, Mars Landing, etc.)
Is this basically a technical way of saying "people realized it could be done"? Like the 4 minute mile, once it was done once, many people accomplished the same feat soon after. The realization that it was possible changed people's perception.
I still don’t understand how its cheaper than disposable. You have groups like Hamas who can make rockets. V2 went to space on 100 year old tech. Seems like a dummy old rocket should be quite cheap compared to one with all these control systems and the need to store descent fuel.
Maybe disposable rocket designs lost the hat and got too overengineered and expensive? Saturn V costs seem absurd to me when the USSR was also making similar rockets presumably far cheaper. Maybe the US defense spending model is just a poor one for getting a lean product developed compared to nations and groups that absolutely must be lean to achieve anything at all.
I recall hearing SpaceX cite manufacturing improvements as well. How do you feel about materials science and the ability to source parts not made of unobtanium?
so now the main problem is building the hardware, there are a lot of solutions for the software part.
Before there were no general-purpose simulators, and barely usable computers (2 MHz computer with 2 KB of memory...), so all you could do was hardcoding the path and use rather constrained algorithms.
I don't think this was the cause. Advanced simulation capabilities have existed for many decades in the industry. Many if not most of those tools are not publicly available.
I think there is also a distinction to be made between offline (engineering) and onboard computing resources. While onboard computers have been constrained in the past, control algorithms are typically simple to implement. Most of the heavy lifting (design & optimization of algorithms) is done in the R&D phase using HPC equipment.
> so now the main problem is building the hardware, there are a lot of solutions for the software part.
While cool and all, this type of sim is a tiny, tiny slice of the software stack, and not the most difficult by a long shot. For one, you need software to control the actual hardware, that runs on said hardware's specific CPU(s) stack AND in sim (making an off the shelf sim a lot less useful). Orbital/newtonian physics are not trivial to implement, but they are relatively simple compared to the software that handles integration with physical components, telemetry, command, alerting, path optimization, etc. etc. The phrase "reality has a surprising amount of detail" applies here - it takes a lot of software to model complex hardware correctly, and even more to control it safely.
Actually, the DC-X did it first, in 1993. The DC-X was the first vertical rocket landing, Blue Origin was the first vertical landing of a rocket that went to space, and SpaceX was the first vertical landing of an orbital rocket.
This Honda landing neither went to space nor was orbital, so it was a similar test to the DC-X test.
Someone proved that there is market demand which could make it profitable.
In the past, there was not much reasons to go into space, commercially, so who would have paid for it? But today there are many more use-cases for sending things to space that are willing to pay for the service.
If you know that something can be done, and there is a potential market for such a project, it then becomes easier to get the funding. Chicken or the egg...
One thing we also need to point out, is that SpaceX uses like 80% of their yearly launches, for their own communication / sat service. This gave a incentive for that investment.
Is the same reason why, despite SpaceX throwing those things up constantly, there really is a big lag of competitors with reusable rockets. Its not that they where / not able to quickly get the same tech going. They simply have less market, vs what SpaceX does non-stop. So the investments are less, what in time means less fast development.
SpaceX is a bit of a strange company, partially because they used a lot of the public funds to just throw shit at the wall, and see what sticks. This resulted in them caring less if a few rockets blew up, as long as they got the data for the next one with less flaws. It becomes harder when there is more oversight of that money, or risk averse investors. Then you really want to be sure that thing goes up and come back down into one piece from the first go.
A lot of projects funding are heavily based upon the first or second try of something, and then (sometimes unwisely) funding is pulled if it was not a perfect success story.
Also psychology and politics kept people from following the easy path.
The Space Shuttle was wrong in so many ways, not least that it was a "pickup truck" as opposed to a dedicated manned vehicle (with appropriate safety features) or a dedicated cargo vehicle. Because they couldn't do unmanned tests they were stuck with the barely reusable thermal tiles and couldn't replace them with something easier to reuse (or safer!)
Attempts at second generation reusable vehicles failed because rather than "solving reuse" they were all about single-stage to orbit (SSTO) [2] and aerospike engines and exotic composite materials that burned up the money/complexity/risk/technology budgets.
There was a report that came out towards the end of the SDI [3] phase that pointed out the path that SpaceX followed with Dragon 9 where you could make rather ordinary rockets and reuse the first stage but expend the second because the first stage is most of the expense. They thought psychology and politics would preclude that and that people would be seduced by SSTO, aerospikes, composites, etc.
Funny though out of all the design studies NASA did for the Shuttle and for heavy lift vehicles inspired by the O'Neill colony idea, there was a sketch of a "fly back booster" based on the Saturn V that would have basically been "Super Heavy" that was considered in 1979 that, retrospectively, could have given us Starship by 1990 or so. But no, we were committed to the Space Shuttle because boy the Soviet Union was intimidated by our willingness and ability to spend on senseless boondoggles!
[1] The first few times the shuttle went up they were afraid the tiles would get damaged and something like the Columbia accident would happen, they made some minor changes to get them to stick better and stopped worrying, at least in public. It took 100 launches for a failure mode than affects 1% of launches to actually happen.
Electrical engineer: motors and sensors are not really any better- motors have gotten more efficient and sensors have gotten cheaper, but gold standard sensors like ring laser gyroscopes have existed since the 60s.
> Launch-thrust engines that throttle down low enough and preciesly enough for landing
Experimentation was also a large factor- pintle injectors have been around for a long time, but were not used in production rockets until SpaceX (who moved from a single pintle to an annular ring). Pintle injectors are very good for throttling.
> Better materials to handle stress for flip over manover etc without added weight
We're still using the same materials- good ol inconel and aluminum. However 3d printing has made a pretty big difference in engines.
More rockets use carbon fiber, but that isn't new exactly and the main parts are still the same variety of aluminum etc. Titanium has become more common, but is still pretty specialized- the increased availability was probably the biggest factor but improved cutting toolings (alloys and coatings) and tools (bigger, faster, less vibration) have also made a big difference.
The premise of this question is wrong, and it's super disappointing that everyone is giving answers as if it's correct. The Honda test rocket only went to an altitude of 300 meters. It's been possible to propulsively land rockets from such low altitudes for decades, e.g., McDonnell Douglas DC-X test in 1996. (And ofc, if you're just talking about re-use for any landing method, the space shuttle first reused the solid rockets and the orbiter in 1981.)
Reusable, propulsively landed stages for rockets capable of putting payloads into Earth orbit is stupendously harder. The speeds involved are like 10-100x higher than these little hops. The first stages of Falcon 9 and Starship are still the only rockets that have achieved that. Electron has only re-used a single engine.
I don't know about easy. Today we have exactly 1 proven reusable orbital class family of rockets: Falcon. And even at that Falcon 9 only recovers 1st stage and the fairings. And Falcon Heavy has never recovered the center stage.
There might be more in a year or two (New Glenn, Neutron, Starship, a Chinese one), but for now, I would call it extremely difficult, not easy.
I wouldn’t say anything has fundamentally changed in the rocket coordination tech itself, just the private sector being able to rationalize the cost of the trials with ROI
I mean, it's mostly that we've decided to try to do it nowadays. Problems tend to get easier when we put hundreds of thousands of hours of work into them. It wasn't in the scope of the original rocket projects because if it was, we probably would never have launched them.
I mean, it's been around as a concept since at least the 50s, but there was quite a lot of scepticism that it was worth the cost (this would only have been reinforced by the Shuttle, whose 'reusable' engines were a bit of a disaster)
It's always been easy. People just didn't think it made much sense. The thing about reusability is that it seriously cuts down on your payload.
I mean for/example the Apollo lander was a tail landing rocket and lunar landing is way fucking harder because a thick atmosphere gives you some room for error.
This doesn't feel like that much of an accomplishment relatively speaking. It's a smallish rocket that went up and down. Very far away from landing something 100 times heavier from orbit.
It's not hard-hard to build recoverable rockets, but it's hard to make money launching reusable rockets that goes to space. This one is not going to space, not making money, and not clear if it's reusable.
Most launch suppliers just make rockets single-use and write it off because it's not like you're launching weekly. Who knows how much it costs in labor and parts to refurbish landed rockets, it's probably cheaper to just keep making new ones.
^ you know what to say in response to this; we're all in the process of finding out which one is more correct.
Ah, the pioneer effect in full effect- as in - once its proven it can be done, many will do it, finding ever more surprising efficient solutions. And the irony is - sometimes, the guys who are the first - don't even know they are the first.
The other team just has some marketing guy, lying through his teeth about the "progress" they have and what they can do. And some manager falls for that- and press-gangs some real engineers to "just-do-that-thing" - and suddenly you are all standalone USP without ever planing for it.
Happened to the unreal team, who created the z-buffer reflections in the marble floor- because some other "engine" from around the world "could do that" - which ironically was a rendered non-real time image.
To sum it up nicely the real innovators, are marketing gurus, lying with "pretend proof" forcing the competition to adapt. Thank you for coming to my TED-walk
I never thought I’d mention Honda and reusable rockets in the same sentence. But that’s exactly what makes tech exciting. When a company you didn’t expect does something bold and impressive, it changes how you see the whole field. Honda’s long history of quiet, precise engineering might be just what space exploration needs more of right now.
Using a Class N rocket motor, the High Steaks rocket reached about 8500m, earlier this year. I think Joe abandoned the thrust vector control for control surfaces within the fins to stabilise rotation.
This is a tiny rocket going up 300ms and coming back down. Happy for them but they're a long way from any utility ( and a decade+ behind other companies )
I think the DC-X program did this first in the 90s. It ran into funding issues and it turns out there isn't a ton of value in reusable rockets that only go a few hundred feet (although more advanced applications are potentially worthwhile)
It's not a difficult problem. It's just Newtonian mechanics plus control theory. You only need a lot of funding and then just do it (of course build a simulator first).
Readit News
https://global.honda/content/dam/site/global-en/topics-new/c...
But it also illustrates that I've seen in the Bay Area time and time again, which is that once you demonstrate that something is doable (as SpaceX has) It opens the way for other capital to create competitive systems.
At Google, where I worked for a few years, it was interesting to see how Google's understanding of search (publicly disclosed), and the infrastructure to host it (kept secret) kept it comfortably ahead of competitors until the design space was exhausted. At which point Google stopped moving forward and everyone else asymptotically approached their level of understanding and mastery.
I see the same thing happening to SpaceX. As other firms master the art of the reusable booster, SpaceX's grasp on the launch services market weakens. Just as Google's grasp of the search market weakens. Or Sun's grasp of the server market weakened. When it becomes possible to buy launch services from another vendor which are comparable (not necessarily cheaper, just comparable) without the baggage of the damage Elon has done, SpaceX will be in a tougher spot.
It also helps me to understand just how much SpaceX needs Starship in order to stay on top of the market.
Some folks will no doubt see this as casting shade on SpaceX, I assure you it is not. What SpaceX's engineering teams have accomplished remains amazing and they deserve their success. It is just someone who has been through a number of technology curves noting how similar the they play out over their lifetimes.
Having witnessed first hand how DEC felt that Sun's "toy computers" would never eclipse DEC in the Server business, and watched as United Launch Alliance dismissed Falcon 9 as something that would never seriously challenge their capabilities, it feels almost prophetic to watch SpaceX's competitors emerge.
The list is longer than that! The earliest hop was probably by McDonnell Douglas in 1993 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_QQDY7PYc8
This is the "markets mature and commodify over time" thing.
What companies are supposed to do in those cases are one of two things. One, keep investing the money into the market or related ones so you keep having an advantage. Or two, if there is nothing relevant and adjacent to productively invest in, return it to shareholders as dividends or share buybacks so they can invest it in some other unrelated market.
But space seems like it would be the first one big time because of the amount of stuff that still has yet to be developed. Starlink was an obvious example of something in that nature, and then it's going to be things like "put datacenters in orbit so you can use solar without worrying about clouds or nighttime" and "build robots that can do semi-autonomous work in places far enough away for both human presence and round trip latency to be an inconvenience" etc.
We'd be living in Star Trek by the time they'd run out of something more to do.
I also won't forget the marketing department at the camera company I worked at, dismissing the iPhone, when it first came out (it ended up eating their lunch).
BPS.space https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH3lR2GLgT0
Can anyone point to a single launch contract cancelled because of "baggage?" Big media would no doubt gleefully shout that story from the hilltops, but I haven't seen it.
Prophesy, but also a healthy dose of wish fulfillment.All Goliaths eventually fall, but they have an annoying tendency of not doing so on the timelines we might hope for. Just look at Microsoft in the 90s.
"The smart cow problem is the idea that a technically difficult task may only need to be solved once, by one person, for less technically proficient group members to accomplish the task using an easily repeatable method. "
The challenge with orbital booster reuse is getting them threw the atmosphere intact and ready to land and then be reused quickly. And do that while being optimized enough to carry payload. That is the actual challenge. And that's just the first, then you need to build everything to be able to do this 5-10 times.
Only one other company then SpaceX has achieved getting a booster back at all, and that was by dropping it into an ocean. RocketLab, and they so far as I know have never reflown a complete booster. BlueOrigin has never landed a complete booster. ULA and Arianespace aren't close.
Honda in particular is not a launch competitor and is very unlikely to be one in the future. Japan already has a pet rocket that they support that has low launch rates. Honda isn't just isn't a competitor in the launch sector, and I don't think they are even planning that.
BlueOrigin might emerge as a competitor, but its nothing like Sun (sun was profitable in the first year). BlueOrigin simply has an infinite money glitch, that almost no other company in history had. The amount of money BlueOrigin spent in the last 10 year is actually unbelievable, they at times had the same amount of people as SpaceX, while having near 0 revenue. By any rational evaluation BlueOrigin is completely non-viable as a company, any they are burning billions per year.
RocketLab will likely be a real competitor eventually, but they are pretty clearly positioning themselves at being Nr.2, not aiming for flight rates nearly in SpaceX territory. And they have a lot of technical risk left to clear.
At the moment SpaceX is moving forward faster then anybody else is catching up. Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy still run loops around everybody and nobody will challenge it for another 10 years at least, and that's assuming Falcon 9 operations don't improve.
Starship isn't needed for the launch market, but for their own constellation.
Dead Comment
But an impressively smooth landing regardless, and I would imagine maybe harder the smaller the rocket is.
From another article.
Why is that? Is it due to the nature of chemicals it uses?
Military rockets, and solid-fuel boosters like the kind the Shuttles used to use, indeed produce very visible exhaust, because they use heavy fuels, and sometimes heavier oxidizers, like nitric acid. This is because they need to be in the fueled state for a long time, ready to launch in seconds; this excludes more efficient but finicky cryogenic fuels used by large commercial rockets.
The large plumes that you usually see the first few seconds when a rocket is blasting off a launch pad are mostly water vapor. The launch pad would be destroyed by the exhaust were it not cooled during the launch by large amounts of water, which gets evaporated instead of the concrete.
Solid boosters put out the most visible exhaust, as burning APCP[1] emits solid particles of metal oxides. Also some rockets (mostly Russian, Chinese, and Indian) use unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine + dinitrogen tetroxide, which emits a reddish-orange exhaust. Both compounds are toxic, as is the exhaust.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_perchlorate_composite...
I wonder if that's the optimal design for VTOL rocket landers? Or is that more particular to smaller lighter rockets and eventually you need heavier duty options for bigger rockets?
Also the DC-X was eventually intended to be single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO). Do any of these reusable rockets plan on being SSTO? Whether from Space-X/Blue Origin or this or the Chinese ones? SSTO is where you're going to dramatically change the economics of rockets, as you now only have to worry about refueling when launching satellites, instead of using an expendable second stage..
Someone must have run out and grabbed the risers.
If you look at the landing shot, you can see that towards the corner are some markings for previous risers which were used for previous launches (or markings for future risers for future launches). The risers it launched from this time are just in a different corner.
Also, I believe it would have been a historical moment if they filmed the entire staff watching the event from the control room.
For the first real hop see Xombie circa 2010.
[1]: https://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt
$185,000 application fee to apply for a new gTLD, plus maybe some auctions for gTLDs that multiple entities wanted, resulted in just under $60 million for ICANN.[2]
Apparently Google and Amazon were the most prolific appliers, with 101 and 76 applications respectively.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#TLD_expansion_and_concer...
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2015/04/17/icann_gltd_auction_mo...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain#Expan...
it feels weird seeing no .com at the end of it
Deleted Comment
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neustar
Notably:
> The name “Honda” has its roots in Japan, a country known for its rich traditions and cultural heritage. In Japanese, the name is written as 本田, which can be broken down into two characters: 本 (“hon”) meaning “origin” or “root” and 田 (“da” or “ta”) meaning “rice field” or “paddy field.” The combination of these characters conveys a sense of familial roots or origin tied to agricultural land, which was historically significant in Japan’s agrarian society.
> Traditionally, Japanese surnames like Honda were often linked to geographic locations or land ownership, reflecting the agricultural lifestyle of early Japan. Thus, the name Honda could have been used to denote a family that owned or worked on rice fields, marking them as stewards of the land.
- Advances in rocket engine design & tech to enable deep throttling
- Control algorithms for propulsive landing maturing (Google "Lars Blackmore", "GFOLD", "Mars Landing", and work through the references)
- Forward thinking and risk-taking by SpaceX to further develop tech demonstrated by earlier efforts (DC-X, Mars Landing, etc.)
Modern simulation and sensor capabilities helped, but were not the major enabling factors.
Is this basically a technical way of saying "people realized it could be done"? Like the 4 minute mile, once it was done once, many people accomplished the same feat soon after. The realization that it was possible changed people's perception.
Maybe disposable rocket designs lost the hat and got too overengineered and expensive? Saturn V costs seem absurd to me when the USSR was also making similar rockets presumably far cheaper. Maybe the US defense spending model is just a poor one for getting a lean product developed compared to nations and groups that absolutely must be lean to achieve anything at all.
Deleted Comment
so now the main problem is building the hardware, there are a lot of solutions for the software part.
Before there were no general-purpose simulators, and barely usable computers (2 MHz computer with 2 KB of memory...), so all you could do was hardcoding the path and use rather constrained algorithms.
I think there is also a distinction to be made between offline (engineering) and onboard computing resources. While onboard computers have been constrained in the past, control algorithms are typically simple to implement. Most of the heavy lifting (design & optimization of algorithms) is done in the R&D phase using HPC equipment.
While cool and all, this type of sim is a tiny, tiny slice of the software stack, and not the most difficult by a long shot. For one, you need software to control the actual hardware, that runs on said hardware's specific CPU(s) stack AND in sim (making an off the shelf sim a lot less useful). Orbital/newtonian physics are not trivial to implement, but they are relatively simple compared to the software that handles integration with physical components, telemetry, command, alerting, path optimization, etc. etc. The phrase "reality has a surprising amount of detail" applies here - it takes a lot of software to model complex hardware correctly, and even more to control it safely.
inb4 blue origin / DC-X did it first
This Honda landing neither went to space nor was orbital, so it was a similar test to the DC-X test.
In the past, there was not much reasons to go into space, commercially, so who would have paid for it? But today there are many more use-cases for sending things to space that are willing to pay for the service.
If you know that something can be done, and there is a potential market for such a project, it then becomes easier to get the funding. Chicken or the egg...
One thing we also need to point out, is that SpaceX uses like 80% of their yearly launches, for their own communication / sat service. This gave a incentive for that investment.
Is the same reason why, despite SpaceX throwing those things up constantly, there really is a big lag of competitors with reusable rockets. Its not that they where / not able to quickly get the same tech going. They simply have less market, vs what SpaceX does non-stop. So the investments are less, what in time means less fast development.
SpaceX is a bit of a strange company, partially because they used a lot of the public funds to just throw shit at the wall, and see what sticks. This resulted in them caring less if a few rockets blew up, as long as they got the data for the next one with less flaws. It becomes harder when there is more oversight of that money, or risk averse investors. Then you really want to be sure that thing goes up and come back down into one piece from the first go.
A lot of projects funding are heavily based upon the first or second try of something, and then (sometimes unwisely) funding is pulled if it was not a perfect success story.
The Space Shuttle was wrong in so many ways, not least that it was a "pickup truck" as opposed to a dedicated manned vehicle (with appropriate safety features) or a dedicated cargo vehicle. Because they couldn't do unmanned tests they were stuck with the barely reusable thermal tiles and couldn't replace them with something easier to reuse (or safer!)
Attempts at second generation reusable vehicles failed because rather than "solving reuse" they were all about single-stage to orbit (SSTO) [2] and aerospike engines and exotic composite materials that burned up the money/complexity/risk/technology budgets.
There was a report that came out towards the end of the SDI [3] phase that pointed out the path that SpaceX followed with Dragon 9 where you could make rather ordinary rockets and reuse the first stage but expend the second because the first stage is most of the expense. They thought psychology and politics would preclude that and that people would be seduced by SSTO, aerospikes, composites, etc.
Funny though out of all the design studies NASA did for the Shuttle and for heavy lift vehicles inspired by the O'Neill colony idea, there was a sketch of a "fly back booster" based on the Saturn V that would have basically been "Super Heavy" that was considered in 1979 that, retrospectively, could have given us Starship by 1990 or so. But no, we were committed to the Space Shuttle because boy the Soviet Union was intimidated by our willingness and ability to spend on senseless boondoggles!
[1] The first few times the shuttle went up they were afraid the tiles would get damaged and something like the Columbia accident would happen, they made some minor changes to get them to stick better and stopped worrying, at least in public. It took 100 launches for a failure mode than affects 1% of launches to actually happen.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative (which would have required much cheaper launch)
* Better motors for gimballing
* Launch-thrust engines that throttle down low enough and preciesly enough for landing
* Better materials to handle stress for flip over manover etc without added weight
* More accurate position sensors
* Better understanding and simulation of aerodynamics to develop body shape and write control algorithms.
> Launch-thrust engines that throttle down low enough and preciesly enough for landing
In large part this is due to improved simulation- spaceX made their own software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozrvfRHvYHA&t=119s
Experimentation was also a large factor- pintle injectors have been around for a long time, but were not used in production rockets until SpaceX (who moved from a single pintle to an annular ring). Pintle injectors are very good for throttling.
> Better materials to handle stress for flip over manover etc without added weight
We're still using the same materials- good ol inconel and aluminum. However 3d printing has made a pretty big difference in engines.
More rockets use carbon fiber, but that isn't new exactly and the main parts are still the same variety of aluminum etc. Titanium has become more common, but is still pretty specialized- the increased availability was probably the biggest factor but improved cutting toolings (alloys and coatings) and tools (bigger, faster, less vibration) have also made a big difference.
Reusable, propulsively landed stages for rockets capable of putting payloads into Earth orbit is stupendously harder. The speeds involved are like 10-100x higher than these little hops. The first stages of Falcon 9 and Starship are still the only rockets that have achieved that. Electron has only re-used a single engine.
There might be more in a year or two (New Glenn, Neutron, Starship, a Chinese one), but for now, I would call it extremely difficult, not easy.
I wouldn’t say anything has fundamentally changed in the rocket coordination tech itself, just the private sector being able to rationalize the cost of the trials with ROI
I mean for/example the Apollo lander was a tail landing rocket and lunar landing is way fucking harder because a thick atmosphere gives you some room for error.
Most launch suppliers just make rockets single-use and write it off because it's not like you're launching weekly. Who knows how much it costs in labor and parts to refurbish landed rockets, it's probably cheaper to just keep making new ones.
^ you know what to say in response to this; we're all in the process of finding out which one is more correct.
Happened to the unreal team, who created the z-buffer reflections in the marble floor- because some other "engine" from around the world "could do that" - which ironically was a rendered non-real time image.
To sum it up nicely the real innovators, are marketing gurus, lying with "pretend proof" forcing the competition to adapt. Thank you for coming to my TED-walk
I wonder if BPS .pace got further with his solid fuel thrust vectoring? Mustn't be far off that if not. https://bps.space/products/signal-r2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UX7NJLYyb4
Rocket Labs has recovered (not reflown) several orbital boosters, and the rest are within 1-2 years of orbital booster recovery attempts.
Deleted Comment
Pure HN distilled