Anything that erodes SpaceX’s monopoly is good for me
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know Blue Horizon or whatever it’s called has had minor success with rockets. What’s stopping Honda from out-competing them? Could it be a funding problem? (I know Blue Horizon has a lot of Amazon funding)
Well yeah, blue origin has already successfully orbited their rocket. Their rocket which has a 45 ton to low earth orbit payload capacity, about the same as the Saturn V (so actually impressive as fuck).
So the head start is what keeps Honda from out competing them. They’re at least 10 years ahead of Honda (but likely more). And BO is solely focused on space, Honda on the other hand isn’t going to prioritize that arm of development over others. So I can’t really see Honda winning that sprint, if they’re not totally committed to the race.
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
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.
We won’t live that long.
Not with that attitude!
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.
Honda built a rocket
Me: of course they did.
They launched the rocket
Me: naturally.
They landed the rocket.
Me: on the first try?
My buddy’s 2 million mile ‘95 civic says this is a sure bet
I hope they crush SpaceX one day.
By landing on them.
This wasn’t much more than a toy rocket:
6.3 m in length, 85 cm in diameter,
The test was completed successfully, the first time Honda landed a rocket after reaching an altitude of nearly 300 meters.But still they were successful on their first try, so we will have to see where they take it from here. 🚀
It’s proof of tech. It’d be stupid and wasteful to do all the tests on a full size 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.
You mean like Starship?
I plead the 5th…
Whatever they tested it’s probably proof of that, but such a small rocket and only 300 meters means that a lot of things were not really proven, because scale is a HUGE issue.
Just ask Elon Musk / SpaceX, the Falcon rocket is fine, but Starship is horrible. And the difference is scale.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 in 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.
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.
I am ABSOLUTELY not praising SpaceX, I’m just using them as an example of how scale makes all the difference at least for some of the components. And being able to launch a small rocket is evidence they can launch a big one too.
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.
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
Of all the manufacturing companies, I would expect nothing less from Honda.
The all new Honda space Odyssey! It has a great V6 rocket engine with a 6000 million mile timing belt. After that you can buy one at amazon but it lasts 4 miles or 6 minutes.
deleted by creator
An alternative to.space junk clogging up the sky would indeed be nice.
It sounds like he’s asking for more space junk.
Well this wouldn’t be that. It would be a competitor to space junk, so increase the number of satellites in orbit by say 25%.
An alternative to anything related to Elon would be great.
Yeah, they could have a product ready by 2045! (If they hurry and make it a priority)
Honda giving a whole new meaning to crotch rocket.
Oh wait, it’s an actual rocket!TIL that honda has its own web domain
TLD*
But yes, same here.
If it had vtech and a fart cannon it would have hit 600m.
Genuinely curious: how many explosions before the successful test?
Apparently they got it right on the first try.
Now that’s the real win.
And Hyundai is making hydrogen powered tanks, what a world. I wonder if hydrogen fuels poses any unique risks as compared to petrol.
I wonder if hydrogen fuels poses any unique risks as compared to petrol.
It’s highly explosive.
I mean so are the shells tank fire. If you are hit hard enough to hit the fuel cell in a tank…you have other problems.
Something something hindenberg…
Well, different. You’d have highly compressed hydrogen in a cylindrical pressure vessel.
The Hindenburg just burned, actually it was mostly its highly flammable paint that caught fire. When a pressure vessel is ruptured, it explodes in a big way, or it quickly removes itself from the vehicle like a mini rocket.
It’s highly explosive
That’s … why i’m here
This is a feature, not a bug.
Is petrol not?
In different ways. For example, it’s very rare for a car to explode in a collision, other than in movies.
One of the reasons that make hydrogen difficult to work with in this sense is that hydrogen (H₂) molecules are so small that they can permeate most materials, such as steel. Then it can get somewhat easily to wherever there is a spark, and chaos ensues. Annoyingly you don’t even need 100% Hydrogen for that to happen, as it can ignite with a concentration of just 4%.
After we stopped using Hydrogen mostly as a consequence of Hindenburg’s accident, it’s taken years to perfect hydrogen fuel cells to a safety standard that can be used in cars. As far as I know, its use has been limited to rockets/space propulsion otherwise (where you can just throw millions at the problem to make it safer).
(H₂) molecules are so small that they can permeate most materials, such as steel
Okay, I knew from texts books that H2 is small but I never thought of the real-life consequences of it being so small. Then theoretically, Helium should also be “leaky”, right?
Yep, helium is even worse for leaking! It’s actually the smallest noble gas and can escape through tiny pores that even hydrogen can’t fit through. Thats why helium balloons deflate faster than air balloons - the atoms literally seep through the balloon material.
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).
I’m also curious, I thought hydrogen was the worst in this regard.
I like your theory on hydrogen reacting as it moves through materials.
Explosion wise or climate wise?
I guess both? I know climate wise the manufacture of those things cannot be climate friendly.
At the end of the day, making EV cars isn’t either unfortunately…but in the grand scheme of things. Both hydrogen and EV cars are more environmentally friendly than gas powered cars.
Manufacturing of any kind always causes an environmental impact. This is the way of things.
The one thing we can’t get that would mitigate the environmental costs of making stuff, is if stuff was built to last…
any sources?
For the production of the tank itself or the likelihood of environmental impact?
Here is an article about the tank, it appears to still be in the proof of concept stage. As for my conjecture that it would likely have a high carbon impact during production that was based mostly on similar studies 2 done on the production of cars.
i guess both?
added to original comment
Well, they’re DEVELOPING them. They’re not MAKING them yet.
I wanna buy one and see what it can do with an old 4 cylinder VTEC out of a Civic Si.
