←back to thread

Honda conducts successful launch and landing of experimental reusable rocket

(global.honda)
1355 points LorenDB | 4 comments | 17 Jun 25 15:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.62s | source
Show context
whatever1 ◴[17 Jun 25 16:02 UTC] No.44300677[source]▶
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?
replies(17): >>44300707 #>>44300730 #>>44300742 #>>44300756 #>>44300762 #>>44300776 #>>44300818 #>>44300828 #>>44300964 #>>44301068 #>>44301170 #>>44301448 #>>44301882 #>>44301989 #>>44302135 #>>44307276 #>>44308491 #
kurthr ◴[17 Jun 25 16:05 UTC] No.44300707[source]▶
Proof of concept. It's a lot easier to do something, if you know it can be done.
replies(4): >>44300789 #>>44300803 #>>44300852 #>>44301675 #
1. mempko ◴[17 Jun 25 16:14 UTC] No.44300789[source]▶
I mean, SpaceX also knew it could be done since reusable rocket tests happened in the 90s.
replies(3): >>44300950 #>>44301445 #>>44301695 #
2. kurthr ◴[17 Jun 25 16:29 UTC] No.44300950[source]▶
Don't you mean the SpaceShuttle in the 80s? or Delta Clipper which didn't reach orbit?

Really, what SpaceX did was radically different from the tests in the 90s from the rockets, to the controls, to the reusability goals. Otherwise they wouldn't have built Grasshopper.

Now NewGlen is kinda a knockoff of Delta Clipper, but that's a different beast.

3. mensetmanusman ◴[17 Jun 25 17:20 UTC] No.44301445[source]▶
And physics, nothing prevents the goal beyond execution.
4. hwillis ◴[17 Jun 25 17:41 UTC] No.44301695[source]▶
The DC-X was 9.1 tonnes empty and 19 tonnes full- meaning landing thrust was ~half of takeoff thrust. The Falcon 9 was 400 tonnes full and 26 tonnes empty, so takeoff thrust was >20x higher than landing thrust.

That's a huge engineering difference, roughly like the difference between a car and a helicopter. The Falcon 9 was also 4x taller, meaning 16x more force to correct a lean. A little burp would send the rocket right back up in the air.