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.'"
Rocket car (Score:4, Funny)
You can have a cheap car that's reliable, and the same applies to rockets.
Or you can have a cheap car that is also a rocket! [wikimedia.org]
Re:Rocket car (Score:2)
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: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 th
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Insightful)
the analogy sucks though, and who the hell would be stupid enough to bet that a new car wouldn't break, be it a honda, vw, mercedes-benz, jaguar or a ford.
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:4, Informative)
So if you build a rocket for X-Price with the hope to get 5 units running, and it would cost you about US$ 2 billion to design it, then the price per rocket will still be at 400 mio US$, much mor than the original X-Price is worth.
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, the world's only mass-produced rocket [v2rocket.com] had some reliability issues, from what I understand. So mass production doesn't guarentee it'll be good.
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:But, cost is a consideration! (Score:2)
Hm. Let's have a look at those statistics, shall we?
Motorcycles: 22 deaths per 100 million veh. miles
Railway: 1.6 deaths per million train miles - that translates to 160 deaths per 100 million train miles.
Or, put it another way:
Motor Vehicle, General Population Risk Per Year: 1 in 6,300
Motorcycles, General Population Risk Per Year: 1 in 119,000
The discrepancy is due to people in average traveling much shorter distances on bikes than
Re:But, cost is a consideration! (Score:2)
There's also fewer motorcycles on the road than there are cars. Also, in trains, there is a higher passenger density, which increases the number of victims per accident.
Re:But, cost is a consideration! (Score:2)
If it were up to me -- and I'm crazy, lets get that straight -- I'd ban anything powered and under human control (ie not including feet) from the road.
When humans will gab on the cellphone while driving a truck around a sharp corner on a busy street, they demonstrate themselves incapable (as a species) of the sort of (self) control needed for safe operation of a vehicle. Period.
Re:But, cost is a consideration! (Score:2)
Re:But, cost is a consideration! (Score:2)
If you did, you'd be putting your front teeth back in your jaw.
Just sayin'.
There's almost nothing that pisses off motorcyclists more than someone who doesn't ride one telling us how suicidal we are.
p
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:2, Insightful)
So maintainance is really not the prime concern. IMO the real concern would be to get the rockets into s
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The same is true about t
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:2)
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:2)
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:2)
a legend, the pen was privately funded, and had a legitimate purpose
you do not want graphite dust and particles finding lodgement in circuits and wiring and being ignited by chance in an oxygen-rich environment.
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:2)
The Ferrari vs. Honda is true in terms of reliability and the cost is clearly cheaper. But why?
1 Is mass manufactured.
1 Is basically Custom Made
Also to consider is the PERFORMANCE Envelope.
Forgetting the "rice bucket" mods that can be made (and would certainly LOWER reliability), one of these cars as very average handling, acceleration, braking, etc. The other has nearly race car performance levels.
It's the extra
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:2)
When do something like this for anyone to care it has to be all available/still made parts that anyone can get and priced at their actual price. In other words, if it works could you build them over and over and at what price.
Saying "you suck nasa, look what we did" when you managed to find a main engine to a saturn V on ebay for 25 bucks, or bought some dented Russian rockets cheap doesn't really c
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs.. (Score:2)
Yeah but... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2, Informative)
To be serious though, in terms of usability and reliability (poster's original point), the Honda still wins hands down.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but what then? My Honda has a back seat.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
Back seat? Well I have a double-bed. (Seriously, for anyone but kids with with nowhere else to fool about, the back seat of a car is a pretty overrated place to do so.)
From the same company... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:From the same company... (Score:2)
Re:From the same company... (Score:2)
Hondas jets (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say one day we'll see a variety of privately manufactured space travelling vehicles,at least intra solar system/near space variety, and probably sooner than most folks think, if they can keep production of fuels up at a reasonable cost over the next several decades, along with just general manufacturing, seeing as how that is so closely tied to oil as well. That is going to
Re:From the same company... (Score:2)
Re:From the same company... (Score:2)
p
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.
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.
Re:Stereotypes (Score:2, Insightful)
To the rockets - think of mass production is always cheaper per unit, but more expensive in total. If you spend country budget it
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.
Re:Stereotypes (Score:2)
Did you mean WEEEEEEEE! trip?
Re:Stereotypes (Score:3, Insightful)
My Nissan 240SX has over 263,000 miles on it and still pulls strong. The cost
Re:Stereotypes (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, I don't think you need to spend 500000$ on a car to make it reliable. It's just that you can't justify 100% reliability for a 20000$ car, so the manufacturers purposefully use slightly less reliable and much cheaper parts.
Re:Stereotypes (Score:2)
um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:3)
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:2)
Well, your first example was a known (potential) failure mode (so don't launch in cold weather). In your second example, a rocket didn't blow up, now did it?
To answer your question, when was the last time a manned NASA rocket blew up when it was launched during the proper weather conditions? Never. Of course, past events may not have a bearing on future reliability...
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:2)
You mean, NASA, who's bureaucratic administrators pushed for the launch (with I believe governmental pressure), against the objection of the engineers familiar with the system that failed. Don't dis all of NASA's engineering abilities and accomplishments because of PHB's and politicians.
NASA, whose craft break up on re-entry just because they got smacked with some foam?
Your statement here is so deceiving, I really hope you don't believe it
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:2)
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:2)
No, you're thinking of the FAA [washingtonpost.com]. Remember those stories in the 90's about the ATC system crashing and getting computer techs out of retirement to fix 'em (and frantic searches for tubes and old, no longer manufactured transistors)? I guess nothing has really changed. Your tax dollars at work.
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, Insightful)
Bullshit.
The Honda S2000's engine is making more horsepower per litre of displacement than any other mass-produced normally aspirated engine on the market, including every single Ferrari engine. The Acura RSX engine also makes more HP per litre than every Ferrari engine.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "pushing the envelope," and everything to do with volume product
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:2)
Heres some other stats:
Ferrari F40:
0-60 3.8sec
0-100 8sec
1/4 mile 11.8sec
Honda S2000
0-60 5.4sec
0-100 15sec
1/4 mile 14sec
Re:um, car's aren't rockets... (Score:3, Interesting)
Other points to consider:
Hopefully they won't have to dial in to nasa... (Score:2)
Well duh! (Score:2)
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.
Ofcourse! A Ferrari is built to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the machinery, sacrificing silly stuff like economy, comfort and reliabiliy.
A Honda Civic is built to be as cheap as possible, but without sacrificing reliability. If repairs ended up costi
Which is why rockets are Ferraris (Score:2)
Very insightful: that's precisely why rocket ships are Ferraris, and will be for some time. Getting into space requires an immense amount of energy, and right now the best way to get that energy requires a whole bunch of heavy fuel which also has to be lifted.
The thing needs to run close to tolerance just to get off the ground. It's going to take a lot
Re:Well duh! (Score:2)
Re:Well duh! (Score:2)
I was once priviledged enough to ride in a Ferrari Testarossa. It was the most uncomfortable ride to get to 80 MPH out of the driveway before the first turn. The ride was fast, make no mistake, but a performance driver wants to "feel the road". Someone driving a luxury car typically wants to feel like the road is silk. They also didn't waste much weight dampening the engine noise from entering the cabin. Of
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:Think about the Soyuz... the AK47... (Score:3, Informative)
The Honda Civic was designed to be reliable. That means that the safety margins in its design are much larger than that of a Ferrari. Engines in mass-produced cars are often intentionally detuned from peak performance by the manufacturer. They trade horsepower for reliability and
Re:Think about the Soyuz... the AK47... (Score:2)
Of course, it's always interesting how there is a fine line between what the engineers consider "abuse" and the users consider "normal usage." Some designers might consider it "abuse" to not constantly perform preventative maintenance on their product. While users don't consider it abuse to spend more time using their item rather than ready-ing it for more use. The more engineers can make their products less fussy, the better
Re:Think about the Soyuz... the AK47... (Score:2)
Re:Think about the Soyuz... the AK47... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's silly to nitpick on the AK's accuracy when it's still more accurate than anyone holding it. Better things to nitpick would be the wood stock, the weight, the exposed gas system, the way it can't keep the bolt locked in the open position or the awkward safety. Those are
Re:Think about the Soyuz... the AK47... (Score:2)
And at the risk of making a major stretch of a comparison, I think accuracy with rifles is like horsepower with cars. To go back to before, a Civic won't give you tons of horsepower, but it will give you enough to merge into traffic (unlike, say the Insight) but also give you great gas milage on regular gas when commuting (unlike, say, a high-end Lexus with twice the hp running on premium). Most people, with some training, can hit some part of a man at 150 yards with an AK, using cheap definitely no
Re:Think about the Soyuz... the AK47... (Score:2)
Have you ever even driven a hybrid car? The Civic hybrid, for example, has better pickup and is more fun to drive than regular Civics.
Re:Think about the Soyuz... the AK47... (Score:3, Informative)
And because it's designed to be reliable. Development and testing of the AK47 and derived models usually involved dropping it from helicopters, dragging the same gun around in the mud and drenching it underwater. If the Russians are really intent on producing something reliable, they can.
(Unfortunately, they don't always stick to these principles; as the owner of a Kiev 88 [kievaholic.com]
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:the russian approach (Score:2)
different cars (Score:2)
That goes through both space AND time!
two features for the price of one
Rice Rocket (Score:2)
This brings a whole new meaning to the term "Rice Rocket". He does realize the flaw in his analogy right? You don't buy a Ferrari because it's reliable, you buy a Ferrari because you can hit 200 in it. If you try to bolt junkyard parts on a Honda in an attempt to go 200 in it, it will be far less reliable than the Ferrari.
Oh look! Their project plan is online! (Score:2)
Re:Oh look! Their project plan is online! (Score:2)
Why falcons are cheap.. (Score:5, Informative)
In fact they use very high quality materials such as a titanium thrust frame in the first stage. But they can afford that because the first stage is reusable.
They also try to avoid any hazardous materials like explosive bolts and dangerous chemicals since that makes working with the rocket before launch much safer and thus cheaper. The falcon I is the first rocket that is allowed to fly without an explosive flight termination system because of redundant thrust termination systems. So there is no bomb on board.
Take a look at the falcon launch complex [spacex.com]. It is basically just a simple concrete building and a flatbed truck. The satellite is integrated while the rocket is horizontal, so they do not need a huge building for satellite integration.
The launch control center is a truck trailer, so they only need one for all launch pads and do not have all that expensive computer hardware sitting around idle.
Now compare that with the launch complex for the boeing delta IV [boeing.com]. There is a vertical integration building for fitting the payload, a huge umbilical tower and all kinds of facilities to handle the huge quantities of liquid hydrogen that the delta IV needs.
The only large rocket that has a comparably clean launch pad [astronautix.com] like the falcon is the russian/ukrainian Zenit (also used by Sea Launch), which is also the cheapest of its class.
The falcon I will also have a very benign launch environment for the payload. The amount of vibration is much lower than with other rockets since the falcon does not use solids. See the payload users guide [spacex.com] for details.
Re:Why falcons are cheap.. (Score:2)
Actually, the first stage isn't reusable. They hope someday, somehow, maybe, that they can make it reuseable, but that's far off in the misty future somewhere.
Call the Iranians! (Score:2)
Seriously, getting into near orbit is one thing. Getting where you need to be is quite another.
Re:Call the Iranians! (Score:2)
A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away (Score:4, Insightful)
In SpaceX's case, the reusability aspect with ocean recovery of parts means a single rocket is not going to be cycled through the entire launch operation in a day even though it is theoretically possible to do so with an ocean launch system. However, with a small fleet of vehicles, it might be feasible to get the whole system cranking out a couple of launches a week.
That's when it starts to look like an aerospace "Honda" since you start applying Deming's statistical methods [signweb.com] to the operation.
Experience Curves Explain This (Score:4, Insightful)
An "experience curve" is a way of explaining that the price per unit for any device decreases with the sum of the production repititions.
This means that it's the area under the curve that matters, the total number of produced items. A Wikipedia article explains it here [wikipedia.org].
The multiplier for how much it decreases obviously varies with the device. Any number of examples abound. For one, Photovoltaic cells are decreasing in per-unit price in good accordance with the sum of the cells ever produced. The idea of the government purchasing or subsidizing the purchase of items (examples: ethanol, PV-cells) fits in nicely to this function.
Rockets have not followed the curve because artificial limits (trade secrets, military secrecy, launch licenses, technology transfer) and purchasing uncertainties (NASA defending their turf) has clamped down on information transfer. If info flows freely, everyone benefits from cheaper devices.
This may not be what we want. Rocket tech = missle tech = N. Korea lobbing a nuke at us = maybe we'd better not publish the cheap rocket designs in Popular Science today, eh? (fearmongering).
Check out the wikipedia article link above, you'll see it directly applies to this situation.
--Kevin
Been there, done that: Minuteman III ICBM (Score:4, Informative)
It's even outlived its successor, the MX "Peacekeeper" from the Reagan era. MX has been retired, but the Minuteman III lives on. They're "remanufactured" every few decades, on a slow upgrade cycle. The basic vehicle lives on.
So the "cheap booster" is quite feasible, if you order a thousand at a time.
Re:Been there, done that: Minuteman III ICBM (Score:2)
Back in the 60's, when $7 mill was pretty serious money. (But the factsheet doesn't tell you that.)
Unattended except for the annual swap-out of birds for maintenance... And those silos while simple, are far from cheap. (Consider the size of the excavation, the amount of concrete, and labor, and the complex systems installed therein.) Those birds require regular testing
This was Andy Griffith's idea... (Score:2)
More info on SpaceX (Score:3, Informative)
Spaceflight Now has an article [spaceflightnow.com] on SpaceX [spacex.com], a low-cost space launch company started by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk [hobbyspace.com] (he is no longer with PayPal). The article describes SpaceX's small-size Falcon I [wikipedia.org] rocket, scheduled to launch a military imaging satellite [skyrocket.de] on its maiden flight in March, and their medium-size Falcon V [wikipedia.org] rocket, scheduled to lift a prototype Bigelow inflatable space habitat [spaceflightnow.com] next year. Interestingly, the Falcon V has enough capacity to lift a Gemini-style capsule [space.com] with 5-6 people to orbit. Both rockets have per-pound launch costs [ghg.net] approximately one-fifth that of comparable [astronautix.com] rockets [astronautix.com]. Long-term plans call for evolving the basic design to heavy-lift and super-heavy lift rockets, assuming SpaceX survives its legal battles [pennnet.com] with defense giants like Northrup Grumman. Musk believes that ultimately a launch cost of '$500 per pound or less is very achievable' (compared to $10,000 per pound for the Space Shuttle). Elon Musk is a member of the Mars Society [marssociety.org], and started SpaceX after he realized that current launch costs would be a large barrier to his plans for a philanthropic mission to put an experimental greenhouse with food crops on Mars [spaceref.com].
This radio interview [thespaceshow.com] with Elon Musk from 2001 is pretty neat, and has some information I haven't seen elsewhere.
The Ferarri analogy is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Ferraris (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad analogy (Score:3, Informative)
Every orbit, 90 minutes or so, is at least 25,000 miles.
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2)
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2)
Rutan's just went up and down; SpaceX's are supposed to launch satellites. RTFA....
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Famous Quote (Score:4, Informative)
When asked about what was going through his mind before he was launched into space, he replied:
"What would you think about, if it were you, sitting there in an oversized suit, strapped to an intricate and complex network of components...wires, circuits and engines, all procured by the government, from the lowest bidder?"
Re:hondas, ferraris and ebay (Score:2)
Sir, your car awaits you. [img209.exs.cx]
Re:hondas, ferraris and ebay (Score:2)
Cars don't seem ideal for achieving orbit or surviving reentry.
Of course, if I am going to die in a massive explosion, I would choose the Ferrari.
Re:Rockets? (Score:2, Informative)
You may laugh at Honda, but... (Score:2)
Some of the modern Honda street-legal factory-made sports-cars will also out-accelerate an
Re:You may laugh at Honda, but... (Score:2, Informative)
I have no idea what model of Honda you could be referring to, but it sure as hell isn't an NSX or any other Honda sold in Ame
Re:You may laugh at Honda, but... (Score:2)
Re:Reliability? Look at Honda vs Ferrari research (Score:2)
(hint: the difference between f1 cars with engines and gearboxes build to run 1000km at most and standart street cars is almost as big as the one between cars and rockets. So f1 performance just says something about how much money these companies decided to pump into the f1 buisness - essentially marketing money, that is missing somewhere else, like in the real R&D.)