Honda Successfully Launches and Lands Reusable Rocket (reuters.com) 36
Honda has successfully conducted a surprise launch and landing test of its prototype reusable rocket as part of its plan to achieve suborbital spaceflight by 2029. Reuters reports: Honda R&D, the research arm of Japan's second-biggest carmaker, successfully landed its 6.3-meter (20.6-foot) experimental reusable launch vehicle after reaching an altitude of 271 meters (889 feet) at its test facility in northern Japan's space town Taiki, according to the company. While "no decisions have been made regarding commercialization of these rocket technologies, Honda will continue making progress in the fundamental research with a technology development goal of realizing technological capability to enable a suborbital launch by 2029," it said in a statement.
Honda in 2021 said it was studying space technologies such as reusable rockets, but it has not previously announced the details of the launch test. A suborbital launch may touch the verge of outer space but does not enter orbit. Studying launch vehicles "has the potential to contribute more to people's daily lives by launching satellites with its own rockets, that could lead to various services that are also compatible with other Honda business," the company added.
Honda in 2021 said it was studying space technologies such as reusable rockets, but it has not previously announced the details of the launch test. A suborbital launch may touch the verge of outer space but does not enter orbit. Studying launch vehicles "has the potential to contribute more to people's daily lives by launching satellites with its own rockets, that could lead to various services that are also compatible with other Honda business," the company added.
271 meters (Score:3)
Anyone in the space industry know if there is much of a difference in successfully landing something that went up to 271 meters vs to the ISS?
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone in the space industry know if there is much of a difference in successfully landing something that went up to 271 meters vs to the ISS?
I believe you'd need to consult Boeing and Blue Origin to find that answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone in the space industry know if there is much of a difference in successfully landing something that went up to 271 meters vs to the ISS?
I believe you'd need to consult Boeing and Blue Origin to find that answer.
As far as I know (and not an expert), except for the Shuttle, no one has performed a controlled (or powered) landing, in this sense, of anything that's made it all the way to the ISS. Sure, SpaceX does controlled landings of their Falcon/Starship boosters and their Dragon capsules land by parachute, and the upper stage of Starship have come down all over the place, but those aren't the same things.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure how you define "controlled" and "powered" in this context. Once in the atmosphere, the Shuttle was a glider (and a rather poor one at that!) - there was no thrust being applied by its engines. It was an unpowered landing. If you didn't have your landing lined up just right, you could not abort, circle around, and try again like for an airplane.
As for controlled: capsules like Dragon (and Soyuz, and Apollo, et
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means "using rocket engines to land". In which case he is right, nothing that goes to orbit lands using rocket engines, they use atmospheric friction and parachutes. All things landing under power, including boosters for orbital spacecraft, are sub-orbital.
Re: (Score:2)
nothing that goes to orbit lands using rocket engines
Soyuz... Yes, I understand the asterisks.
Re: (Score:2)
nothing that goes to orbit lands using rocket engines
Soyuz... Yes, I understand the asterisks.
I say it descends by parachute and touches down with the assist of small rockets -- arresting its descent very near the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
But you did say....
nothing that goes to orbit lands using rocket engines
I mean, it's hard to say a Soyuz doesn't land using rockets ;)
But yes, I knew what you meant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shit sorry- that wasn't you!
No problem, though the Soyuz only uses those rockets in the final few meters because it lands on land. If it splashed down, it wouldn't need them. In any case, it and its passengers would probably be okay w/o them even on land, but using them probably removes potential damage/injury cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the thrusters you mention (with maybe the exception of the Soyuz's soft-landing motors) are for pre-ballistic maneuvering. I'm not really sure that counts.
I think it's pretty accurate to say that only the Shuttle had controlled landing after deorbit- i.e., not purely ballistic reentry.
Also, I suppose that funky Air Force thing does it now too, right? X37 or some such?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you define "controlled" and "powered" in this context.
Um, you said *and*, I said *or* -- controlled (or powered).
I know the Shuttle was a glider, or as said in the movie Space Cowboys, "A flying brick", but thanks for the recap.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, SpaceX does controlled landings of their Falcon/Starship boosters and their Dragon capsules land by parachute, and the upper stage of Starship have come down all over the place, but those aren't the same things.
Starship upper stage is the same thing. In testing, perigee has been in the atmosphere, but only a small delta-V short of ISS velocity.
It did make three successful controlled landings in the Indian Ocean last year of Block 1. But 3 failures of Block 2 since, and we forgot already?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the reminder. I stopped watching SpaceX launches when they moved the videos off the SpaceX site and onto X and I stopped paying close attention to those more positive aspects of Elon when he started destroying the government (at Trump's behest, to be fair), especially for his own benefit -- gutting agencies and firing people overseeing his companies, getting investigation into his companies shutdown, wildly misinterpreting information yet posting them as facts then trying to cancel funding, peop
Re:271 meters (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, there is. The capsule that left the ISS and returned to earth doesn't have the tank capacity, or mass, required to reach orbit and dock at the ISS. All of SpaceX's successful rocket landings have been of suborbital rockets, e.g. Falcon 1, Falcon 9, or Falcon Heavy. Theoretically, Dragon is capable of landing on the pads at Canaveral, but NASA has insisted that they drop them in the ocean instead.
Pretty cool (Score:2)
Had no idea Honda was working on any type of launch vehicle. It's not much but still, pretty cool, 20ft rocket is pretty big to get off the ground and land and like any beginning artist part of learning "copy the masters", in this case, SpaceX of which this is very similar. Video here [youtube.com]
Also can we make VTEC jokes yet? And how cool is "space town Taiki", it's in Hokkaido which I only knew for it's countless soap factories [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Had no idea Honda was working on any type of launch vehicle.
I'd be happy if they'd get back to making vehicles with manual transmissions, so my future Honda choices won't be limited to the top-tier Civic Si and Civic Type R. I don't like automatics and won't even consider a CVT.
Re: (Score:2)
Had no idea Honda was working on any type of launch vehicle.
I'd be happy if they'd get back to making vehicles with manual transmissions, so my future Honda choices won't be limited to the top-tier Civic Si and Civic Type R. I don't like automatics and won't even consider a CVT.
Me too - but it's not going to happen. It's like wishing for the return of the cigarette lighter and the tape player. Miata still has a manual option, but I prefer FWD
Re: (Score:2)
Manuals are going to go away in performance cars too now that they're objectively lower performance.
It's all going to be DCT at the high end (perhaps creeping down), an automatics/CVTs.
It's a shame, I too love a manual, but it's less good for performance, and doesn't really save money for manufacturers any more (killing the low end).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although, if you want one you can land again, you might need to scale it up a notch [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This feels more MD Delta Clipper than anything else to me. To me the interesting part isn't that a rocket has flown this test, the interesting part is that Honda has chosen to get in on this.
But then again, Chrysler had been a major contractor on Apollo, so it's not like there isn't precedent for automakers to get in to rather unexpected markets.
SpaceX has some competition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't competition, and won't be for years (they're hoping for a suborbital flight in four years), if ever, any more than Blue Origin is. The amount of energy needed to put something in orbit is about an order of magnitude more than for these suborbital flights, and odds are they're using a fuel is cannot, under any circumstances, provide that much delta-vee. And the experience they get with these systems won't help much either, when it comes to orbital capable launch systems.
It's a publicity stunt, lik
Re: (Score:2)
ASIMO serves as a good example. Low expectations of commercial viability but great value in knowledge gained.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't a publicity stunt involve far more than a short article released after 4 years?
You'd think so, but maybe they're just not very good at it.
Not pointy enough (Score:3)
Launch video:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uaU-qBTQKis
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, thanks for sharing!
This is a nice POC. Now, all they have to do is scale this by a factor of 1,300 or so!
Sleeker than Bezos' Rocket (Score:2)
It's much like the design of the Bezos rocket, except that it's much thinner at the top allowing for maximum penetration while it thrusts into non orbit.
Still a log way to go (Score:2)
Blue Origin also started like this and still barely reaches space somewhat.
A vertical landing test (Score:2)
Ok. So Honda is learning how to land rockets vertically. That's a useful skill, albeit hardly unique. It isn't remotely to the level of launching payloads into orbit. But, gotta learn to crawl first, right? The "reusable" bit is hyperbola. No further than the rocket went and given that it is just a test vehicle, it better be reusable. I look forward to seeing further progress. It will be quite a while before they can compete with SpaceX or even Blue Origin but this is an area where having more pla