Honda conducts successful launch and landing of experimental reusable rocket

(global.honda)

1355 points LorenDB | 1 comments | 17 Jun 25 15:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #

roshdodd ◴[17 Jun 25 16:41 UTC] No.44301068[source]▶

>>44300677 #

As someone who actively works in the field, it was a culmination of:

- 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.

replies(6): >>44301152 #>>44301524 #>>44302182 #>>44304090 #>>44304198 #>>44316187 #

1. kjkjadksj ◴[19 Jun 25 06:59 UTC] No.44316187[source]▶

>>44301068 #

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.

↑