Slashdot Mirror
Private Rocketplane Test A Success
HobbySpacer writes: "XCOR
announced the success of the first phase of flight tests
for the EZ-Rocket. In the most recent flight, Dick Rutan fired both of its rocket engines to take off and reach a speed of 160knots and an altitude of 6200 feet. The vehicle is a Long-EZ kit plane modified to hold
twin 400 lb thrust rocket engines fueled by isopropyl
alcohol and liquid oxygen. The project is not aimed at a homebuilt EZ-Rocket but will demonstrate safe and reliable rocket propulsion.
The primary goal is development of reusable launch technology that leads next to a high altitude sub-orbital rocket vehicle for
space tourism,
rocket
racing (e.g. vertical drag racing at air shows) and the
X-Prize competition."
I think Rocket Racing may very well be the coolest thing I've ever heard of.
Search first, ask questions later.
Rockets are the most inefficient method of propulsion that's still in use, a better goal would be figuring out an entirely new propulsion system that could apply to everything. Speaking of which, what's the latest on Ginger?
And furthermore, who cares about "vertical drag racing"? Drag racing cars is fun because it's something everyone can relate to. Very, very few people can relate to racing rockets.
Congratulations, sir. You are a credit to the name Anonymous Coward, bringing much glory to your fellow AC.
- The AC Avenger
"isopropyl alcohol and liquid oxygen. "
,EZ-Rocket doesn't sound too safe to me. Nor does "Nuclear Reactor In a Box"
Wait a minute, what did the Nazis use for rocket fuel for the Me. 163 Komet? Wasn't one of the components pure hydrogen peroxide, making it VERY dangerous to work with?
I dunno
Thanks. I'm not often presented with the opportunity, and i'm always terrified that someone else will race in while i'm typing.
Since the lameness filter doesn't let you actually say "first post", i've been trying to come up with alternates. I'm kinda proud of "french toast", but i could use a new one.
Suggestions?
If your last name was Rutan (read "Rootin'"), you should not name your kid Richard (or encourage the nickname Dick!). This is common sense.
Thankfully, Bart & Lisa's prank calls to Moe on The Simpsons should discourage future "Hugh Jass"s, "Ivana Tinkles"s, and "I.P. Freely"s.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Think of how much money goes into car racing. Rocket racing would be an incredible spectacle.
This could easily lead to full funding for the transitional stage of private rocketry before the obvious profit potentials of orbital flight.
The visions of certain very big companies influencing the designs and the paint jobs of the rockets inspires scary visions.
never mind the obvious upgrades on jokes like "If company X designed ABC"
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Is it just me or does anyone else think that pushing the limits of rocket design technology at public airshows might not be in the best interests of public safty?
In conventional top fuel drag racing when things go wrong which they often do it can often result in part flying off 100's of meters into the air. Dragsters by their very nature are stressed to the limits of their durability, in order to get that little bit faster than the next guy.
I don't think we want distasters reminisant of the challenger disaster happening at airshows before we decide this is a bad idea.
160knots = 296 km/h
6200 feet = 1890m
400 lb = 1779N
A cool feature for slashcode would be automatic unit conversions.
They're using rubbing alcohol and liquid oxygen. Despite the fact that low-concentration hydrogen peroxide might be on your bathroom shelf beside the isopropyl alcohol, they are entirely different chemicals.
lol, so when are the Vulcans going to land!
can someone tell me why they're not interested in using balloons at all for reusable launch vehicles? It would make far too much sense to me since it's essentially free and lightweight, and a lot LESS expensive than dumping humungous feul tanks into the ocean after every launch. You can get up very high, ditch the balloon, then use attached rockets to fill you the rest of the way. You could even use reusable balloons with hot helium instead in case you need to lift too much weight for just hot air to raise.
If God gave us curiosity
The Jews did not "stay away". Dig a little deeper and you'll see it too. Stop spreading misinformation.
900 fathoms = 327.27 rods .3648 tonnes
.013956 kiloWatt hours
120 gallons (UK) = 545.5 liters
16 weeks (SE) = 4,838,400 seconds
25 slugs =
12 Calories =
8000 atmospheres = 81,060,000 Pa (NZ)
Hey, don't vandalize my first post. This isn't a fucking billboard, man. I didn't invite everyone to fucking post their own personal vendettas. If you don't like Cyborg Monkey, take it up on your own time, in your own fucking thread.
Cunt.
Personally, I simply like to claim the post in the name of ACs everywhere.
Alternately, you could keep a repository of short stories, ala the venerable osm, in a text file, and cut and paste it into your first post for our amusement.
HTH!
- The AC Avenger
Now, not only do I have crapily modified cars running down main street fridays and saturdays, but now I also have to deal with these jerks interruptin my flight!? I don't want to see a rocket with a 4' muffler, it's not cool. I don't care if your rocket has a Vtec engine. I want to fly safely from point A to point B, much as I would like to drive from point A to point B without having your terrestial counterpats fly past me at 100+ mph.
Honestly, kids these days.
It would be cool to see what kind of logo the liquid-oxygen and isopropyl alchohol manufacturers come up with to plaster on the sides of the rockets, however. Also: all monkey pilots!
Looks like it's moderators on crack day today.
:)
If you want to get into orbit, or leave Earth entirely, the crucial thing you have to do is go really fast. Altitude is pretty much irrelevant except that aerodynamic drag slows things down more at lower altitudes.
The only difference than launching from a balloon at altitude would be the slightly reduced aerodynamic resistance, negligible compared to the cost, complexity, and risk of building a floating launch platform
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
overqualified?
The first tourist in space got to stay on the ISS for a couple days and he was using a well tested reliable vehicle (Soyuz). The tourists of these sub-orbital rockets would get minutes (at most hours) in a cramped vehicle, is it worth the risk ? Although I agree with the concept of stimulating creativity for designing sub-orbital re-usable vehicles, keep in mind that these "tourists" would still be essentially strapped to a liquid oxygen bomb and that if "civils" start going into space what does that say about the gruelling Astronaut selection performed by NASA and all the space agencies that produce astronauts (Russia, ESA, CSA, NASDA,ISA etc.) These people (astronauts) give up a good part of their life to get a trip into space. Challenger was the first to fly a "tourist" on the crew and we know what happened. NASA then cancelled all civil/commercial endeavors using the shuttle ever since... In my opinion the risks are too great to let just anyone fly in these vehicles. (as payloads mind you) -I am tempted to use the cliche "Talk about the Wrong Stuff"
Starting a grill with liquid oxygen.
And I thought my newest 60 mile per hour RC car was the coolest thing ever. Damnit, it's already obsolete like my 400mhz p2. Z;(bu
PayPal $$ if you sign up for free offers (eBay, cred cards, e
Okay, not really. But I should have a gotten patent on that...
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Uhh. Didn't the nazi's have "Rocket Jets?" ;)
Once again. Slashdot is behind on their news..... a good 50 years
And as I recall these jets flew fine. Except landing the damn things was next to impossible. I seem to recall that 90% of the deaths related to the Nazi Rocket Jet was due to landing incidents.
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
If the rockets are very similar in power output, how do you determine who wins? Is it the only guys that doesn't black out and crash in a huge ball of flames?
The primary goal is development of reusable launch technology that leads next to a high altitude sub-orbital rocket vehicle
Could a missile fired from sub orbit on an (relatively) inexpensive platform such as this one, actually knock out a satellite?
Yes I realize that the missile would have to be expensive enough with it's payload and whatever guidance it would need to find it's target.
But if these things can be made as cheaply as they say, I wonder if small governments (okay i am sicking of typing the "T" word) could use this kind of technology to cause a lot of mayhem.
The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Since these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Linux is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux. Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature. My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image" from the Linux web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers. Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for me in the "required configuration" section of the manual. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although the advocates of Linux self-righteously boast the efficiency of their chosen operating system and deride the "bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are blatantly incorrect. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system? Of course not. Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility. Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their commercial counterparts. Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet. The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality. Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Windows XP will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that those readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux.
The big problem was that the new engine concept didn't work out, and using off the shelf engines doomed the thing to suborbital flight, for which there is no commercial market.
I love these private ventures. It shows that humans will either one day inadvertently rule the galaxy for all the wrong reasons or more likely blow themselves to smithereens in the attempt to do something cool enough to make a quick buck.
Excellentey. I managed to reduce my lack of work induced boredom by 10 minutes.
Nice try dick, but you're not the first
i Dunno about normal rockets, but those rice rockets are getting super fast, my 2001 civic dx has almost 140 hp! and with the EXTRA large spoiler, tail pipe, lowering, and rims i could probably beat on of these fancy schamcy rockets
oops, remove the space between the h & t before trying the link
..cos a 767 might slam into the server and no one would be able to read it
Dawn of Civilian Rocket-Powered Aviation
First Phase of Flight Test Program Completed.
Mojave, October 3, 2001: XCOR Aerospace today announced that it has successfully completed the first phase of its flight test program for the EZ-Rocket. The EZ-Rocket is the world's first privately built rocket powered airplane.
At 0900 hours today the EZ-Rocket took off from the Mojave Civilian Flight Test Center to an altitude of 6,200 feet before gliding back to Runway 30. The EZ-Rocket is powered by twin 400 pound thrust rocket engines designed and built by XCOR Aerospace. The flight test program passed its first milestone by flying with both engines for an engine run time of 96 seconds and total flight time of five minutes and twenty seconds.
Retired United States Air Force Lieutenant
Colonel Dick Rutan
XCOR's test pilot is retired United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Dick Rutan, a Vietnam veteran and world-famous test pilot. "I ignited one engine and the crew said everything looked good, so I lit the second engine and we started moving," said Lt. Col. Rutan. "As I rolled down the runway Mike Melvill flew overhead in another Long-EZ and served as chase plane. The plane took off 1,200 feet down the runway and once airborne the vehicle rapidly accelerated to 160 knots. The rocket power provided positive, firm acceleration. Once we started running out of liquid oxygen I shut down both engines. Mike inspected the airplane visually and reported it was clean with no leaks. We entered a standard flame-out [landing] pattern and glided back to the runway."
The EZ-Rocket is a research and development test bed for XCOR. "Routine operations must be the primary criterion for rocket engine development," said XCOR Chief Engineer Dan DeLong. "Our approach is to build safe and reliable rocket engines first, then progress to the higher performance needed for orbital launch vehicles."
XCOR president Jeff Greason said, "We passed a major milestone today. This is a significant technical achievement for a variety of reasons. First, once you get two engines working in combination it is significantly easier to cluster more engines for larger vehicles. Second, we were able to keep the engine and fuel flow running smoothly during the flight."
The official roll-out and flight demonstration of the EZ-Rocket will take place this November at Mojave airport. Check the XCOR (www.xcor.com) web site in the next few days for details on the event.
EZ-Rocket Specifications
The EZ-Rocket is a modified Long-EZ homebuilt aircraft. The aircraft is powered by twin 400 lb thrust regeneratively cooled rocket engines and fueled by isopropyl alcohol and liquid oxygen. The EZ-Rocket includes an external composite fuel tank and an insulated internal aluminum liquid oxygen tank. The modifications were performed at XCOR Aerospace's Mojave, CA shop. Tests are performed at the Mojave Civilian Flight Test Center.
About XCOR Aerospace
XCOR Aerospace is a California corporation located in Mojave, California. The company is in the business of developing and producing safe, reliable and reusable rocket engines.
Linux has nothing to do with rockets at all.
Besides, if you decide to flame Linux, at least know what you are talking about.
1) Mandrake, Slackware, RedHat, etc are not versions, but atonomous distributions.
2) The Mandrake distribution is specifiaclly compiled for a pentuim. Get Red Hat if you want to run it on a 386+.
3) There is no anti-virus software for Linux because there are no viruses (the concept of users and limited file access to a user prevents viruses from doing much harm).
4) Linux has an excellent firewall implementation called "iptables". Furthermore it's a stateful packet filter / NAT that does many things most firewalls can't.
5) IE is not a standard. It's a web browser.
The IETF NEVER encouraged the "adoption" of IE.
Standards are CSS, HTML, etc which the Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Galeon, Nautilus web browsers all stick to.
6) As for the apps, you have many choices. Here are some of the MS counterparts:
IE: Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Galeon, Nautilus
Outlook: Evolution, Kmail, Netscape Mail
Excel: Gnumeric, Kspread, OpenOffice
Word: Abiword, Kword, OpenOffice
Ignorant idiot!
The FAA is just going to love this. From all reports, they can just barely keep the current hub system from totally breaking, are centralization demons, can't get their heads screwed on right about letting small airports have cheap TARDIS radar (favoring instead a humongously expensive, overbudget, and behind-scedule grandiose system of their own, there was an article in Wall Street Journal about this recently). Yep, they're really going to love this..
Do you who was doing this? Was it Roger Gregory from the Xanadu project? I used to work with him and he seemed to be working on something similar. He used to bring in pieces from failed tests, like 4" sections of the aluminum engine cracked clean from the rotational force. If it is the same person, too bad it didn't work out, he seemed to really be into his design and we all learned a little about rocketry when he was around.
On the other hand, it looks like the Rutan brothers are using something like Extreme Programming to build rockets... build up little by little, test daily, twice, three times a day, use existing airframes as testbeds (Dick Rutan could fly a LongEZ in his sleep, and probably has by now :) .... and you know damn good and well that when they get a reliable product they're gonna release it as a kit.
(drum roll please)
Open Source Aviation!
No, I'm serious... when you buy a kitplane, you get the source (plans, etc.), and you are perfectly free to hack'em, and post your results and sell the resulting product. (Kindof a BSDish license... 1/2 :) The original 2-seat pusher LongEZ became the 4-seat Velocity, the taildragger Quickie, and inspired the commercial LearStar and Beechcraft StarShip designs.
Yeah, aircraft design is kinda like doing something the size of Mozilla.. but once you've got something working (and the VariEze/LongEZ designs have been around for... well, the old VariViggen (the granddaddy of all homebuilt canards) the Museum of Flight was registered in 1972, so.... and once you've got something it's dead easy to do incremental improvement and even rapid prototyping.
They've been doing this on a shoestring budget (I know how the Rutan brothers work, that's how they built Voyager) for about two years now, and they've got a bird in the air alreddie... where the Zoche folks have been at this aerodiesel thing for six years now, and still don't have anything flying... which is a reflection of the design philosophy; Zoche is going for an FAR-23 certified engine up front, where XCOR is happy to get something off the ground in a safe manner... in much the same way as Netscape would write this huge thing ground-up and only release it when it was all done as opposed to Mozilla pumping out milestone after milestone as things gradually started working...
In short, real-world, non-code-geek example of why bazaar-style development works.
I find it unbelievably strange that John Carmack (of Doom,Quake fame) is also building a rocket capable of transporting humans. He's made a ton of progress. His company: Armadillo Aerospace
Not sure if it's been posted yet, but a guy out in Oregon is also working on something related to this.. Goes by RocketGuy
Everything he's worked on and gone through is pretty damn interesting, worth the read if you haven't heard of him.. He's set to launch in May of next year
I was of opinion that the doctrine and history of so extraordinary a people were worthy the attention of the curious. To acquaint myself with them I made a visit to one of the most eminent Quakers in England, who, after having traded thirty years, had the wisdom to prescribe limits to his fortune and to his desires, and was settled in a little solitude not far from London. Being come into it, I perceived a small but regularly built house, vastly neat, but without the least pomp of furniture. The Quaker who owned it was a hale, ruddy-complexioned old man, who had never been afflicted with sickness because he had always been insensible to passions, and a perfect stranger to intemperance. I never in my life saw a more noble or a more engaging aspect than his. He was dressed like those of his persuasion, in a plain coat without pleats in the sides, or buttons on the pockets and sleeves; and had on a beaver, the brims of which were horizontal like those of our clergy. He did not uncover himself when I appeared, and advanced towards me without once stooping his body; but there appeared more politeness in the open, humane air of his countenance, than in the custom of drawing one leg behind the other, and taking that from the head which is made to cover it. "Friend," says he to me, "I perceive thou art a stranger, but if I can do anything for thee, only tell me." "Sir," said I to him, bending forwards and advancing, as is usual with us, one leg towards him, "I flatter myself that my just curiosity will not give you the least offence, and that you'll do me the honour to inform me of the particulars of your religion." "The people of thy country," replied the Quaker, "are too full of their bows and compliments, but I never yet met with one of them who had so much curiosity as thyself. Come in, and let us first dine together." I still continued to make some very unseasonable ceremonies, it not being easy to disengage one's self at once from habits we have been long used to; and after taking part in a frugal meal, which began and ended with a prayer to God, I began to question my courteous host. I opened with that which good Catholics have more than once made to Huguenots. "My dear sir," said I, "were you ever baptised?" "I never was," replied the Quaker, "nor any of my brethren." "Zounds!" say I to him, "you are not Christians, then." "Friend," replies the old man in a soft tone of voice, "swear not; we are Christians, and endeavour to be good Christians, but we are not of opinion that the sprinkling water on a child's head makes him a Christian." "Heavens!" say I, shocked at his impiety, "you have then forgot that Christ was baptised by St. John." "Friend," replies the mild Quaker once again, "swear not; Christ indeed was baptised by John, but He himself never baptised anyone. We are the disciples of Christ, not of John." I pitied very much the sincerity of my worthy Quaker, and was absolutely for forcing him to get himself christened. "Were that all," replied he very gravely, "we would submit cheerfully to baptism, purely in compliance with thy weakness, for we don't condemn any person who uses it; but then we think that those who profess a religion of so holy, so spiritual a nature as that of Christ, ought to abstain to the utmost of their power from the Jewish ceremonies." "O unaccountable!" say I: "what! baptism a Jewish ceremony?" "Yes, my friend," says he, "so truly Jewish, that a great many Jews use the baptism of John to this day. Look into ancient authors, and thou wilt find that John only revived this practice; and that it had been used by the Hebrews, long before his time, in like manner as the Mahometans imitated the Ishmaelites in their pilgrimages to Mecca. Jesus indeed submitted to the baptism of John, as He had suffered Himself to be circumcised; but circumcision and the washing with water ought to be abolished by the baptism of Christ, that baptism of the Spirit, that ablution of the soul, which is the salvation of mankind. Thus the forerunner said, 'I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance; but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' Likewise Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, writes as follows to the Corinthians, 'Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel;' and indeed Paul never baptised but two persons with water, and that very much against his inclinations. He circumcised his disciple Timothy, and the other disciples likewise circumcised all who were willing to submit to that carnal ordinance. But art thou circumcised?" added he. "I have not the honour to be so," say I. "Well, friend," continues the Quaker, "thou art a Christian without being circumcised, and I am one without being baptised." Thus did this pious man make a wrong but very specious application of four or five texts of Scripture which seemed to favour the tenets of his sect; but at the same time forgot very sincerely an hundred texts which made directly against them. I had more sense than to contest with him, since there is no possibility of convincing an enthusiast. A man should never pretend to inform a lover of his mistress's faults, no more than one who is at law, of the badness of his cause; nor attempt to win over a fanatic by strength of reasoning. Accordingly I waived the subject.
"Well," said I to him, "what sort of a communion have you?" "We have none like that thou hintest at among us," replied he. "How! no communion?" said I. "Only that spiritual one," replied he, "of hearts." He then began again to throw out his texts of Scripture; and preached a most eloquent sermon against that ordinance. He harangued in a tone as though he had been inspired, to prove that the sacraments were merely of human invention, and that the word "sacrament" was not once mentioned in the Gospel. "Excuse," said he, "my ignorance, for I have not employed a hundredth part of the arguments which might be brought to prove the truth of our religion, but these thou thyself mayest peruse in the Exposition of our Faith written by Robert Barclay. It is one of the best pieces that ever was penned by man; and as our adversaries confess it to be of dangerous tendency, the arguments in it must necessarily be very convincing." I promised to peruse this piece, and my Quaker imagined he had already made a convert of me. He afterwards gave me an account in few words of some singularities which make this sect the contempt of others. "Confess," said he, "that it was very difficult for thee to refrain from laughter, when I answered all thy civilities without uncovering my head, and at the same time said 'thee' and 'thou' to thee. However, thou appearest to me too well read not to know that in Christ's time no nation was so ridiculous as to put the plural number for the singular. Augustus Caesar himself was spoken to in such phrases as these: 'I love thee,' 'I beseech thee,' 'I thank thee;' but he did not allow any person to call him 'Domine,' sir. It was not till many ages after that men would have the word 'you,' as though they were double, instead of 'thou' employed in speaking to them; and usurped the flattering titles of lordship, of eminence, and of holiness, which mere worms bestow on other worms by assuring them that they are with a most profound respect, and an infamous falsehood, their most obedient humble servants. It is to secure ourselves more strongly from such a shameless traffic of lies and flattery, that we 'thee' and 'thou' a king with the same freedom as we do a beggar, and salute no person; we owing nothing to mankind but charity, and to the laws respect and obedience.
"Our apparel is also somewhat different from that of others, and this purely, that it may be a perpetual warning to us not to imitate them. Others wear the badges and marks of their several dignities, and we those of Christian humility. We fly from all assemblies of pleasure, from diversions of every kind, and from places where gaming is practised; and indeed our case would be very deplorable, should we fill with such levities as those I have mentioned the heart which ought to be the habitation of God. We never swear, not even in a court of justice, being of opinion that the most holy name of God ought not to be prostituted in the miserable contests betwixt man and man. When we are obliged to appear before a magistrate upon other people's account (for law-suits are unknown among the Friends), we give evidence to the truth by sealing it with our yea or nay; and the judges believe us on our bare affirmation, whilst so many other Christians forswear themselves on the holy Gospels. We never war or fight in any case; but it is not that we are afraid, for so far from shuddering at the thoughts of death, we on the contrary bless the moment which unites us with the Being of Beings; but the reason of our not using the outward sword is, that we are neither wolves, tigers, nor mastiffs, but men and Christians. Our God, who has commanded us to love our enemies, and to suffer without repining, would certainly not permit us to cross the seas, merely because murderers clothed in scarlet, and wearing caps two foot high, enlist citizens by a noise made with two little sticks on an ass's skin extended. And when, after a victory is gained, the whole city of London is illuminated; when the sky is in a blaze with fireworks, and a noise is heard in the air, of thanksgivings, of bells, of organs, and of the cannon, we groan in silence, and are deeply affected with sadness of spirit and brokenness of heart, for the sad havoc which is the occasion of those public rejoicings."
I would pay! This is how we get to Mars guys! Its so simple! Bernie Ecclestone is quaking in his boots - F1 Rockets are on their way and the tobacco industry is going to pay for it!
Better get a thicker fire jacket Schumi!
I'm going to start on building my own rocket... you know what they say, start small: with this. ;)
42 + 1 = 42
Kinda amusing, but there's no point in correcting the post, as it is an obviuos troll...
Could also be used for demolishing buildings. Much faster than the old-fashioned wrecking-ball...
Looks like they are building five of them and plan to fly one this year. http://www.stormbirds.com/project/
I know it's too late to get any karma but hopefully somebody reads this....
The fact that it's a modified long EZ scares me. I mean, John Denver didn't exactly have great luck in his.
> If you post after this, you will die.
That's a tautology right ?
Everybody dies sometime.
I'm very suprised to see nobody else in this forum recognize the name "Rutan." The Rutan brothers, especially Dick, are huge figures in experimental aviation. The Design that was modified for this experiment was originally created by Dick. As were many other novel and very successful airplanes. Among them were the "Voyager" aircraft that circled the globe unrefueled. He also has an "nonsymetrical" twin engined, twin hulled aircraft that carries eight people, goes 300mpg and is fully aerobatic. Trust me, this guy knows his stuff and is quite unlikely to win the Darwin arward. Not saying can't, but given this guys intelligence and experience, I don't believe he could ever be a candidate.
Open Source Aviation... AKA Home Building
Just in case anybody is interested, you can get the complete plans for 5 of Rutan's aircraft on CD-ROM at www.wicks.com
Full Disclosure: Yes, I had something to do with producing this CD, but I don't make anything from these sales. I just thought somebody might find these interesting, if rather pricy...
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/showPage.phtml?pagenu m=88
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
...why can I only buy catsup by the gram. Why isn't the bottle size listed in newtons?
Meanwhile, previous Long-EZ customer's will love this the Rocket-EZ. John Denver could've killed himself much quicker in one of these. And James Gleick could make another - high speed - attempt on his own life too.
Regards, Ralph.
In fact the boomerang (asymetric twin aircraft) has a complete data acquisition system run by a Powerbook (at least last time I saw it... he may have upgraded by now)
Who knows? He may even be running OSX by now!
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Great, now we have (or will have) commercially available continent-crossing payload-delivery vehicles for every 3rd-World whack with enough cash to buy one. Kinda wish that Rutan had stuck with his old hobby, building small planes that could fly around the world... which could be considered another continent-crossing payload-delivery vehicle... cough never mind...
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
See: Link to Lotus it has run on linux for some time now.
It is only a matter of time before WINE fixes the rest.
It's good to see that while others are thinking up ways to kill us, we're doing a pretty good job of coming up with ways to kill ourselves.
While I have no doubt that the rocketplanes test was a complete success, I do have some issues with its ultimate goal of low cost reusable orbital operations. Two 400lb rockets just arent going to cut it. Figure the plane wieghs in at 10 tons fully loaded, thats 20000 lbs of fuel, rocket and pilot, and wings. Wings are good for getting you up off the ground, which this demonstrated, but they really become a liability above say mach 3-4 and they are obviously completely useless once in space. Keep in mind that they only got up to about 160knots or maybe 200mph. Orbital velocity is 14000 mph. you need alot more oomph than 800 lbs of thrust to put you into a stable orbit.
I do not know what kind of efficiency you mean, but in terms of energy efficiency rockets are actually very good. A rocket engine transforms about 90% of the chemical energy of the propellants to kinetic energy. This is excellent.
The total energy efficiency of an orbital rocket can be defined as the potential energy of the empty rocket in orbit divided by the chemical energy in the propellants. Even here rockets are not that bad.
If you have a hydrogen powered rocket with a specific impulse of 4300m/s and a total delta-v of 9000m/s, your mass ratio is 8.109, so the propellant weighs 7.109 times as much as the empty rocket. But the empty rocket has a specific kinetic energy of about 30 MJ/kg, whereas the propellants only have a specific chemical energy of 11MJ/kg. The total efficiency is thus 30/(7.109*11)=0.38. Not too bad, eh?
The reason rockets are still so expensive is that most current rockets are direct descendants of ballistic missiles where cost was not important. And the shuttle is a f***ing joke.
regards,
tuttle
Pesonally, I think this guy (http://rocketguy.com) will kill himself first. :) A lot of money and some knowladge can definately go a long way towards that goal. Looking as some of the stuff he did is quite impressive, but it seems like he sees some new technology and wants to use it, i.e. his landing system. Airbags, balloons, parachutes and parafoils, all in one landing. I guess he never head of the "K.I.S.S." principle.
In Austin Texas there is a doctor who does vasectomies whose name is Richard Chop. Sort of chicken and egg, which came first the name or the vocation. (I kid you not, you can check the phone book.)
development.lombardi.com
You forgot a few other niceties:
Volume: one litre is the volume of 1000 cubic centimeters (i.e. 10cmx10cmx10cm cube). How many of you can tell me how "large" one gallon is, physically? Could you guess how many gallons are in your swimming pool just by the dimensions... in your head?
Kilogram: the mass of one litre of pure water. How much does a gallon of water weigh???
Metric Tonne: the mass of one cubic meter of water. How many Imperial Tons does your swimming pool weigh?
I can easily visualize things in terms of metric units... but it's very difficult to do so with Imperial units. I see this as a great aid in any sort of mental gymnastics.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I hate to break this to the programming community, but you did not invent the philosophy of "open source" or the "bazaar vs. the cathedral."
Science has had an "open source" component for pretty much as long as there has been modern science. Everybody works on some little bit of the problem (figuring out how the universe works), and when they have something they think is reasonable they publish it for everyone else to critique. Such publications may not technically be free, because you have to subscribe to the journals, but in reality if you go to any science library you can get free access to them. Really, the philosophy of finding mistakes by releasing code as "open source" so that a lot of other people can look at it and tinker with it is the same old philosophy behind peer-review and publication of scientific papers. The "open source aircraft design movement" exists; it is called "Journal of Aircraft" and is delivered to my home every couple of months.
This may get me modded down, but I think that "open source" is just Computer Scientists figuring out something that the other branches of science have already known for a very long time. Getting new developments into the public domain and letting other researchers bang around on them will yield even newer and better developments. One team of people locked away in isolation is not nearly as likely to develop a workable product (which for science would pretty much be a model of everything in the universe.)
That said, I don't think the idea of developing aircraft the same way that you develop programs is a good idea, because they are NOT the same sort of things. I'm sure you all know the joke about if Airplane development went like Computer development then we'd already have hypersonic transport aircraft with world spanning range that the average person could afford to own and operate... and they would explode once every week or two killing everyone on board. Aircraft Theory and Aircraft Conceptual Design and Aerodynamic Behavior and other such things are generally done as public science and/or published in journals and presented at conferences (i.e. "open source"). When it gets time to actually design the aircraft, this is done with a relatively small, closed team of people. There is a good reason for this. Airplane and rocket crashes kill people. Pick up a copy of The Right Stuff and read the first chapter. Such things ARE tested regularly. They are tested methodically and often. In wind tunnels and CFD code and on the ground and finally in the air. They are tested with methods and in progressions that were proven to work with VERY costly (in dollars and lives) prior experience. You could call it "extreme programming" for aircraft. Aircraft design is also complex. Simply moving the battery from the front to the back of a plane this size can invalidate all previous flight test data, so it is with good reason that the development is done by people who know the whole picture intimately (a difficult thing for a hobbyist to do). And, many aircraft design groups don't want their detail designs and their "tricks of the trade" to be open source because they are proprietary or classified. Yes, other sciences have "Closed Source" projects, too; but unlike in computer science, they tend to usually be offshoots and niche developments with the bulk of science being "open source" (to use CS lingo). Even big, private company laboratories in other scientific fields publish a lot of "open source" scientific material. Not only do they realize the value of having it reviewed and verified by other scientists "for free," but they also understand the importance of such publication in maintaining their organization's prestige in their industry and in recruiting the best new talent.
Aerospace has had "open source" for almost 100 years now. Physics has had it since the days of Newton and Galileo. Computer scientists, welcome to the club. Just don't think the rest of us haven't known about this for a long time... and stop tacking the phrase "open source" on everything. Try terms like "peer review" and "in the public domain" on for size; maybe you'll sound less socialist and the public will take it more seriously.
I am sick of everyone calling for new exotic propulsion systems when rockets work just fine!
Isn't this a dead give-away. System = collection of units used together: International = hodgepodge designed to clip the wings of foreign aspirations. Enough said
Actually, you would more easily understand the intensity of a kilometre-candle, (ie a candle at a kilometre), rather than a metre-microcandle, (ie a millionth of a candle at a metre), which is what a microlux is all about. Also, an acrefoot is an easier volume to grasp than a Megalitre, although they're the same size. People convert sheets of paper into stacks miles high because thousands and millions can not be grasped.
7 base units
CGS had only three, and seemed to work OK with that. I've used systems with one base unit. All this means is how many equations you plan to leave out of the derived theory.
They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7. The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole. The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies. Yet the "Ampere is afforded the status of "base unit". The size of the candela depends on the square metre, but the lux does not.
Sad about the mass unit having a derived name ...
you try telling me what 27 miles is in feet
Don't have to. Because I don't do that sort of conversion at all. Really.
be able to have some idea of exactly what each derived unit means
Some is the operative word here. Rationalisation throws a spanner in the works. 1 C translates into 12.566 C, if flux is being refered to.
Really, it is perfectly logical, and a heck of a lot simpler to learn than the old Imperial or Imperial-derived systems, where there were about 3 times as many different base units.
The imperial system has three base units; yard, pound and gallon. All the rest are supplemental. Somehow, three by seven is three. Good one.
Also, if you are sticking to SI notation to the letter, it is plain from the name of the derived unit exactly how it is derived from the base units.
I did way better with no units, in a google system. In essence, 1 s = 1e100, 1 m = 1e1100, 1 kg = 1e73300, 1 A = 1e32100. Decimal prefixes are just added in: 1 cm = 1e1098. Do unit and exponent calculations all in the same column. The units are far enough apart that you can do the unit sums and exponents with a calculator, and you don't have to remember individual dimensions.
yes, partly because scientists want to be able to understand each other
The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science.
Why measure volumes in litres. Doesn't the cubic metre cope with this??? No. Volumes are derived from the linear measures, and are very hard to reproduce. Capacity is done by bulk comparison, and is very easy to use: ergo, litres, gallons, bushels.
Also, if you are sticking to SI notation to the letter, it is plain from the name of the derived unit exactly how it is derived from the base units
And from this, we can see immediately how "Weber" is derived from "Metre", "kilogram", "second", and "ampere". Get real.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
The Aerojet corporation was formed shortly after
WW II initially to market solid-rockets for
rocket assisted flight for airplanes. To say
this is a first is overlooking 50 years of
history.
What speed!
Casual Games/Downloads
Let me begin by saying that I have always dreamed of space, I would love to one day be floating freely down the corridor of some space hotel, or watching the sun rise over the sea of tranquility.
I'm sure I am not alone in this desire, and a good sign of that is the x-prize and the hobby rocket builders. Unfortunetly in everyones zelous attempts into the great beyond fossile fuels are being burned at an alarming rate(I realize isopropyl alcohol and liquid oxygen are the fuel for this rocketplane, but not all of these ventures use the same fuel). With the dawning of comercial space tourism fuel usage will only increase, and vast amounts of polution will follow. I think before we start throwing money and these little rocket ships, perhaps we look for another method of placing cargo and people into orbit.
Years ago there was talk of a mass driver (magnetic cannon) to launch objects. While this also uses vast amounts of power, this power does not nessesarily have to come from fossile fuels. Perhaps prior to a launch vast solar cells could be used to charge capacitors, or we could use tidal, hydro, or nuclear power none of which are perfectly clean but they are arguably cleaner the coal, oil, or gas power stations.
I don't know if their is a perfect soloution, but I voice my opinion because I worry that they day I float in some space hotel, it won't be because I am on vacation, but because earth is in hospitable due to mass polution and our own destructive tendencies.
Geoffrey Cameron Peart
McMaster Software Engineering
Monkies? I like Monkies
Read this sentence a few times:
The XCOR EZ-Rocket is the first step toward the development of such racers - racers which, in turn, will develop the technology that enables a new era of routine, affordable space travel for science, business, and personal leisure."
It's beautiful.
And all who dwell within the rockethouse
AC's cheerfully ignored
"The primary goal is development of reusable launch technology that leads next to a high altitude sub-orbital rocket vehicle for space tourism, rocket racing (e.g. vertical drag racing at air shows) and the X-Prize competition." ---How about the Darwin Awards competition?
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein