Hondas in Space 228
mikejz84 writes "Fast Company takes a look at SpaceX's attempt to challenge the high cost of space. This cost cutting philosophy includes buying equipment on eBay, looking to milk trucks for tank design ideas, and rummaging though junk yards. CEO Elon Musk remarks 'A Ferrari is a very expensive car. It is not reliable. But I would bet you 1,000-to-1 that if you bought a Honda Civic that that sucker will not break down in the first year of operation. You can have a cheap car that's reliable, and the same applies to rockets.'"
It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have problems with your car, ups, rocket in the space, you are propably a gonner. There is no technical car service in the space. And I have big doubts if NASA can put out a resq. team specially for you
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:1, Interesting)
They are much cheaper, practicly military surplus. And generally 'reliable' enough. (although not always. look the death rate of Russian vs American astronaughts.)
If you want to know something funny, our rockets burn a combination of liquid oxygen and nitrogen. Russian rockets burn fucking KEROSENE.
What we need is cheap setup that takes the cheapness of russian rockets and combine them with the high quality of American made ones.
Maybe honda can do a good job. Maybe not. There are a lot of Asian countries that would like to get into space and honda might be the ticket.
Personally I think that resuable craft built by private industry would be the best ticket. But I suppose those are at least powered in space by rockets. (if they use a hybrid jet and rocket setup)
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, let's look at the recent manned launchers. Which one shall we pick. Soyuz? Not a single manned launch accident in 20 years. Errm, that's not NASA and not even US. Russians got that one right (shame about L1 though).
well that is reall insightless (Score:2, Interesting)
Honda Civic vs cheap? A Suzuki maybe.
And since when are rockets mass-produced? Man you need mass-productive experience, to create cheap and reliable transport.
However I do agree that costs can be surely reduced with an order of magnitude with careful planning, and keeping an eye on cost-effectiveness.
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:2, Interesting)
But, cost is a consideration! (Score:5, Interesting)
However, when the cost comes down enough, SO WHAT if a few people die?
Now, it sounds callous, but when you look at statistis, Motorcycles (AKA murder-cycles) are MIGHTY DANGEROUS.. [dot.gov]
NOBODY IS BANNING THE KAWASAKI, ARE THEY?
When you see somebody get on board a relatively cheap, fast, murder-cycle, do you tell them about the risks?
See, when space travel is cheap and "good enough", people will use it, even if it's as dangerous as a (gulp!) murder-cycle.
Stereotypes (Score:4, Interesting)
I am the -lucky- friend of a Ferrari owner's son. He's had a Maserati cambiocorsa and now owns a 575 Maranello.
Yes these things have un-satisfiable thirst.
Yes they cost a shit load in insurance.
Yes you will change the tires every 5000 Miles
However,
No they will not break-down as you go for a WE trip
People will break-down with ferraris just a much as any other car when all you do is trash it at the green lights (kills the clutch, transmission and tires).
A lot of these people go out on the tracks come bitching about brakes screaching and all is normal.
Pretty much any car, will have reduced life expectancy if you abuse it. And I think there is a higher tentation trashing a Ferrari than a measly Civic LX.
There is a good reason why Ferraris are the best selling super-sport cars (besides Porsche). And yes reliability is increasingly a reason for that.
Think about the Soyuz... the AK47... (Score:5, Interesting)
An AK47 assault rifle is more reliable than an M16 because it was designed to be simple and mass-produced, not designed to be cheap. A Honda Civic is more reliable than a Ferrari because it has less moving parts and is mass produced, ditto the Soyuz space capsule that the Russians use - on a per mission basis, it's had less failures than the shuttle.
It doesn't mean the rocket is being made with bits from scrapyards and eBay, just that the ideas are being lifted from non-rocket science thinking, and some of the tools are secondhand. Either way, getting someone into space on top of a controlled explosion is not cheap however you look at it, and if they can cut down on the peripheral costs, then good luck to them.
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Interesting)
the russian approach (Score:3, Interesting)
but I'll bet a honda civic costs more money to -develop- than a ferrari does...
the russians have fairly reliable rockets - but they do fail. the reason they've done so well with safety is that they have great backup systems.
the soyuz launch system has a mechanism that can eject the entire capsule if something goes wrong on launch. it's been used and it works.
I suspect reasonable reliabilty + good backup systems is the way to go. oh, and -no- parts from the junkyard....
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your argument is basically, "NASA has experience, others don't". In fact, nobody has any idea whether NASA is better or worse than private companies because none of them have tried anything yet. You're just making a gigantic assumption based on the idea that if they have experience, they must be good at it.
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:4, Interesting)
A Honda does not push the envelope. A Ferrari does. That is why a Ferrari will break down more often, on a per-mile basis, than a Honda.
Now, if you did NOT push a Ferrari to the envelope, it would not break down as much (but then, what would the point of owning a Ferrari be?)
Now, when one day we can build a vehicle that can go into space with as much operational margin as a Honda has for its purpose, then the space vehicle will be as reliable as a Honda.
However, in order for that day to come to pass, we will have to have some form of power plant that is several orders of magnitude more powerful than what we have now, in order to have the power to lift a vehicle into space slowly, and return it slowly. We will have to have some form of propulsion that is not limited by the rocket equation - reactionless thrusters, antigravity, or some other form of sci-fi doubletalk drive.
We don't have them yet. We don't have them on the drawing board yet. We don't even have any good theories that would lead to such drives any time soon.
Now, I agree with the concept of the article - make the rockets as simple as possible, and they will be more reliable. This means don't try for reusability as it is a false economy - every kilo of mass you add to the ship to support reuse is a kilo of cargo you cannot lift.
Personally, I am in favor of what I call BPR's - Big Paper Rockets. Imagine a huge Estes rocket - cellulose exterior, solid fuel interior, that provides you with 90% of the delta-V to get into orbit. The last 10% is provided by a hybrid rocket - solid fuel, liquid oxidizer, so that you can throttle it and get precicely what you need to get into your target orbit.
Most non-living cargos are launched with a system that is, say 99% reliable - and if you roll cloud-cloud, oh well, launch another - they are cheap.
Man rated cargos go up in a Space Honda - a vehicle designed to go into orbit carrying just your crew, and come back with just your crew, and if it comes down to a choice between reusing it afterward and shaving a kilo off it, you shave the kilo.
Now you have cheap to mass-produce boosters, expenive (but no where NEAR as expensive as the launch costs) to build crew vehicles, and cheap cargo pods.
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:3, Interesting)
Other points to consider:
Re:Stereotypes (Score:3, Interesting)
Were I to win the lottery, or some other way become wealthy, I'd certainly buy a Ferarri. No question.