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."

283 comments

  1. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    french toast!

    1. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, sir. You are a credit to the name Anonymous Coward, bringing much glory to your fellow AC.

      - The AC Avenger

    2. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

    3. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I like Robert Frost because he is a 31337 haXX0R! I name all my fps after Rober Frost or a goat, or sometimes both.

    4. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

  2. 1st post by pagercam · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    1st post finally

    1. Re:1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Please bite my ass now.

    2. Re:1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Heh heh.. Loser.

  3. Last Post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Last Post.

    If you post after this, you will die.

    1. Re:Last Post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      i am interested in this service you provide. please arrange for me to die at your earliest convenience.

    2. Re:Last Post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
      Very well. The proper authorities have been notified.

      Note: To anyone else interested, I have a special offer for tonight only. Your first servicing will be free. After that, it's only $140/death. KTHXBYE!!!!1

  4. last post? by medicthree · · Score: -1

    how long will it take before posting after your last post and my dying?

    1. Re:last post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      It varies greatly. On occasion, last-post-rule-breakers may live another 70 years. Of course, you might choke on a bone tomorrow. You never know. On average, you would have 1 week. Watch out! I warned you!!!

    2. Re:last post? by medicthree · · Score: -1

      alright, thanks for the heads up.

  5. Rocket Racing! by ragnarok · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I think Rocket Racing may very well be the coolest thing I've ever heard of.

    --
    Search first, ask questions later.
    1. Re:Rocket Racing! by sporty · · Score: 1

      Until rockets collide. Ack, that sounds like it could be the next PowerMan 5000 song :) (/joke)

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    2. Re:Rocket Racing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      please bite my hairy ass.

    3. Re:Rocket Racing! by bartok · · Score: 0

      Not for the environement though. Rockets polute the air *A LOT*

    4. Re:Rocket Racing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The environment is irrelevant. In 20 years all the important people will be living off Earth anyways so we won't have to worry about the environment ever again.

    5. Re:Rocket Racing! by Spootnik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      XCOR is doing it just right. I've always felt that the way to space is paved with a market - a REAL market not platimum mining fairy tales - a small group, and a small, non-gold plated start. Equipment that's simple, tough, reliable, not cutting edge.

      I'll bet there is a market for Me-163 and X-1 replicas. Maybe not a huge market but a market nevertheless.

      There was a business in Texas building Me-262 replicas, full size, exact in the airframe but using modern engines and avionics. They had orders in hand, deposits, and airframes well under way. I stopped following them some time ago and don't know if they delivered: last I heard there were problems.

      Get more people flying rockets - even if it's in the atmosphere at subsonic speeds - and you've taken the first crucial step.

      Congratulations to XCOR! Smart, hard working, visionary people.

    6. Re:Rocket Racing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      How many World Trade Centers could be targeted with this puppy? Or nuclear reactors? Or hospitals? Does it have a special anthrax bay? How about a dusting mechanism for the Black Death? That's what it really needs!

    7. Re:Rocket Racing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course this is a Troll...

      Next time? +1

      Poopie!!

    8. Re:Rocket Racing! by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. It's more exciting when you race things that weren't meant to be raced or fly things that weren't meant to fly.

    9. Re:Rocket Racing! by Trollificus · · Score: -1

      Ahem.. We?
      Who invited you?

      --

      "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
      - Gov. Jesse Ventura

    10. Re:Rocket Racing! by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Funny

      And next season on Junkyard Wars two teams will have 10 hours to build their own Rocket Racers! (While the American host wanders around mispronouncing "pumpkin".)

    11. Re:Rocket Racing! by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      Get more people flying rockets - even if it's in the atmosphere at subsonic speeds - and you've taken the first crucial step.

      The first crucial step to what ? More mindless resource burning ?

      When I hear "vertical drag racing" I tend to choke. What exactly is good in that ?

      If you want progress, go for old-fashioned horizontal drag-racing using electrical engines and suitable batteries. This might have an impact on technology advances in a sector that might essentially help save the planet by using different resources.

      If you want more progress on old-fashioned combustion engines create a car-racing formula that essentially bases on getting the race done with a limited amount of fuel. This might boost engine efficiency.

      Nobody is doing this right now. At least not to a commercially usable level. It just not where the money lurks.

      Disclaimer: I am not a tree-hugger. I just think we don't need Formula1 teams with 800hp cars, that talk about "doing research for the cars on the road in 10 years". We don't need developing drag race technology that will never see any commercial use. And we certainly don't need vertical drag racing, as it is just old technology in the hands of the masses.
      --
      +++ath0
    12. Re:Rocket Racing! by canadian_right · · Score: 1
      LOX and alcohol has neglible polution. The shuttles powdered aluminum boosters aren't too clean, but the LOX/LH main rocket is very clean.

      How clean a rocket is depends on the fuel, its silly to state that all rockets pollute.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    13. Re:Rocket Racing! by Pr0n+K1ng · · Score: -1

      Why don't you shut the fuck up? The Canadian Right can lick my hairy balls. You monopoly using, Ralph Klein loving cock sucker.

      Fight the monopoly! Move your local phone service over to Sprint Canada ASAP!

      --

      Oh well, back to dowloading pr0n...

      Pr0n K1ng

    14. Re:Rocket Racing! by Fat+Casper · · Score: 2
      850hp from a non-turbo 3 liter engine is not only amazing, it will affect what gets built for us. Sorry, I just had to disagree there. Everything else you said I couldn't agree with more.

      --
      I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
    15. Re:Rocket Racing! by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Raceing rockets might show few benifits right off, but looking deeper, it is a good thing.

      1) Create a visable result for capital put into research and development of rocketry. Visable results tend to be more impressive than paper proof, allowing for more capital and thus more research.

      2) Research, unlike in auto raceing could be more directly applied ot commercial designs. In auto raceing speed, acceleration and handling are all assets, with fuel efficency as well.

      With rockets, the fact remains, getting craft from ground to end point as fast and as cheaply as possible.

    16. Re:Rocket Racing! by JimPooley · · Score: 1

      If you want progress, go for old-fashioned horizontal drag-racing using electrical engines and suitable batteries. This might have an impact on technology advances in a sector that might essentially help save the planet by using different resources.


      Great! So how much extra coal or oil should we burn in power stations to generate the electricity to power these things?

      Conventional forms of electic transport just move the pollution from one place to another..

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    17. Re:Rocket Racing! by slow_flight · · Score: 1

      The top tiers of racing (CART, Formula 1) are VERY concerned with fuel mileage. It is not uncommon for a 500 mile race to come down to who can stretch their fuel the farthest - pit stops a very time expensive when each extra second in the pits translates to over 200 ft. on the race track. Also, in CART, the teams are limited to n gallons per race, so unlimited horsepower without regard to fuel efficieny is not a winning formula.

      The research done in racing does in fact make it to the road. Anti-lock brakes, traction control, and 'crush zones' all come from high-tech racing. Aerodynamics as well, which directly impact fuel effciency.

      --

      Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
    18. Re:Rocket Racing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're forgetting is that power plants are much more efficient than car engines, so the net amount of fuel burned and emissions will be greatly reduced.

    19. Re:Rocket Racing! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      "The Blue Team has been extraordinarily lucky in the junkyard, and found an old Atlas combustion chamber and a 300HP fuel pump!

      "Meanwhile, the Red Team has covered the blackboard and half their walls in diagrams and has decided to build their rocket engine from hubcaps and motorcycle handlebars..."

    20. Re:Rocket Racing! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      If you want progress, go for old-fashioned horizontal drag-racing using electrical engines and suitable batteries. This might have an impact on technology advances in a sector that might essentially help save the planet by using different resources.

      Depends what you consider "progress". Drag racing with electric motors has different requirements than downtown driving. Drag racing emphasizes one brief, powerful pulse -- you might end up with a power source featuring EMP and MHD extraction from a shaped explosive charge within a titanium chamber.

      I just think we don't need Formula1 teams with 800hp cars, that talk about "doing research for the cars on the road in 10 years". We don't need developing drag race technology that will never see any commercial use.

      Um.. Formula 1 are not drag racers, they're open-wheel racers. Drag racers try to zoom quickly in a short straight line. Formula 1 races are in the 2-hour range.

      And this research you're disparaging is the same research which produced fuel injection, electronic ignition, computer powertrain controls, and those other things which increased gas mileage over the past 25 years from 10 MPG...

    21. Re:Rocket Racing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that you would think that.
      The average coal burning power plant is 35% efficient according to the EPA. Clean Diesel engines can be more than 40% efficient. Assuming that the electric car itself is 100% efficient it is still responsible for more poluttion per mile than a city bus. Now, if the same green nuts that were pushing electric cars weren't so opposed to clean electricity (nuclear power anyone?) it might be a different story.

    22. Re:Rocket Racing! by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      If you want progress, go for old-fashioned horizontal drag-racing using electrical engines and suitable batteries. This might have an impact on technology advances in a sector that might essentially help save the planet by using different resources.
      .
      Great! So how much extra coal or oil should we burn in power stations to generate the electricity to power these things?
      Conventional forms of electic transport just move the pollution from one place to another..

      Have you ever seen a solar-powered calculator? A wind-prop built up in offshore regions generating power for those living on the coast?

      Just because America ignores the technology, it does not mean it is not there.

      The entire point: gas(online) is still WAY too cheap in the United States. After all we know it might be gone in 30-50 years. So we'd better start getting into alternatives. Or we might end up fabriating very good walking shoes in the near future.

      Of course you might say: These devices suck (solar and wind-energy), they have such a low efficiency. Well, take a look at convential combustion engines from 60 years ago. They sucked in terms of efficiency as well. Research made them better. Research can still make them better, but there are alternatives that deserve research just as much.

      And i tend to think that a electrical engine has a higher power yield. Remember when you turn the ignition on your car (any car) next time: 75% of all the energy your gasoline/diesel can generate at all is WASTED (converted) into energies that don't serve forward motion: vibration, noise, engine heatup, friction...
      --
      +++ath0
    23. Re:Rocket Racing! by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      The research done in racing does in fact make it to the road. Anti-lock brakes, traction control, and 'crush zones' all come from high-tech racing. Aerodynamics as well, which directly impact fuel effciency.


      Agreed and point taken. What I am saying is: limit the gasonline usage even more. What will we see? Shorter races? Or again even better efficiency with a race getting even more kicks because a "technology race" is being held at the same time the drivers are battling for the lead position.

      The up-and-down combustion engine is being used for lots of decades. What could be won with rotary engines? What can be archieved by restricting cars to 1liter-engines with twin-turbos. And what could be won (in terms of environment preservation) once these techniques make it to the showroom?
      --
      +++ath0
    24. Re:Rocket Racing! by John+Carmack · · Score: 3, Informative

      The rockets we are currently firing use hydrogen peroxide, which produces nothing but water and oxygen in the exhaust. Not even the most rabid greenie could argue with that.

      Hydrogen / oxygen rockets also produce water and excess hydrogen. Alcohol / ocygen rockets leave a few other things similar to auto exhaust, but not really worse.

      Solid rockets leave some bad stuff, and some propellants are truly nasty, like nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine, but those are also much more expensive, so wouldn't be used in a cost effective program.

      John Carmack

  6. Another application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    EZ Darwin (TM)

    Take that you postercomment lame thing.

  7. Emad: the Morning After by TRoLLaXoR · · Score: -1

    Emad had been laying awake for about two hours. It was 10:00 AM and he had already missed two classes: Remedial Operating Systems / Linux 101 and Diversity & Tolerance. Had Emad been totally awake he would have groaned. Today's Diversity & Tolerance class was teaching how to put condoms on erect penises, something right up Emad's alley. Well, at least the erect penis part; he knew nothing about condoms.

    Slowly, Emad lumbered out of bed. His joints ached. His head throbbed. What had happened the night before? He could feel dried feces in his pants and was pretty sure his asshole was ripped wide-- Oh! He remembered a little too suddenly as he almost tripped over a pile of spent whippits, several beer bottles, and a giant black 96" oil-filled dildo. Mounted on a chainsaw engine. He had had Michael Sims and CmdrTaco over last night for a "few cold ones" but it seemed that, par for the course, they had all ended up sharing a "few hots ones," ones being a quite more acceptable word for gay fucks.

    Emad made his way to the bathroom, and moaned. It was in complete disarray. The sink was filled with congealed diarrhea, the floor was sticky with drying piss, and the bathtub looked like a long-neglected water trough on a pig farm. It would take Emad hours to clean this mess. He tried hard to ignore the stench as he sauntered toward the toilet. Didn't Taco and Sims respect anything? Emad gave so much to them and their cause.

    Upon opening the lid on his broken toilet he saw the special gift Taco had left for him: an inhumanly giant turd. It had to be at least a foot and a half in length! Taco had been planning this one, as he saw unchewed peas, corn, and peanuts (honey-roasted and Spanish, as far as he could tell) that all told the story of Rob Malda's special dinner the night before. The monster turd curled around the inside of his toilet. Not wanting to let Rob Malda's magical ass-gift go to waste, Emad reached inside the toilet and gently grasped the brown meat.

    Moaning, Emad began devouring the slimy but firm stool. He tasted the honey on the peanuts; he felt the peas pop as he chewed through the delicious crap-worm. His cock immediately sprang to life as he chomped down another fourth and then fifth of this mutant ass-birth. Could life get any better? Down to the last bit of his meal, he gagged and coughed. Taco had been eating bubble gum as well! Needed to wash it all down quickly, emad yanked his tiny Iranian dick and aimed upward. He pissed, and pissed hard, catching the golden rain in his mouth. After what seemed like a painful eternity, his bladder was empty of, and his mouth washed clean by, Aunt Jack's Special Lemonade.

    1. Re:Emad: the Morning After by Fecal+Troll+Matter · · Score: -1

      Did you troll around with Penis Fish Guy, or am I thinking of another shitfaced troll?

    2. Re:Emad: the Morning After by TRoLLaXoR · · Score: -1

      look at my luser number.

      i'v ebeen troling around since then. (spring 2000)

      greetings

    3. Re:Emad: the Morning After by Fecal+Troll+Matter · · Score: -1

      Greetings to you, fellow troll. May the God and Goddess bestow good luck upon you.

  8. This is the lamest post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    This is the lamest post and I am lamer than all of you!

  9. Pointless by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is improbable that such a propulsion device is impossible.

      For a start I suggest that you brew an extra strong cup of tea.

      Two super powers related to the last rocket development race in the last century. I'm going to buy some stock in Lipton and Salada tomorrow.

    2. Re:Pointless by The+Panther! · · Score: 1

      Actually, a ram jet is worse....

      --
      Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
    3. Re:Pointless by grammar+nazi · · Score: 1
      Is it infinitely improbable? Because then I can feed the information into the infinite improbability drive and end up anywhere in the universe.

      If it is only finitely improbable, well, then it isn't improbable enough.

      Sigh... I miss Douglass Adams. </tear to eye>

      --

      Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
    4. Re:Pointless by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      Nope. This may be the most inefficient method of propulsion (The main page for this plane seems down; it may come up again)

    5. Re:Pointless by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Informative
      • 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

      Got any ideas? Once you're at the edge of the atmosphere, you're pretty much limited to using a self contained reaction motor.

      Ground laser launching relies on superheating air, plus it's only been used to shove vehicles directly up, so it's basically a really cool but expensive way to replace July 4 bottle rockets. A more viable alternative is turning beamed EM into electricity then powering magnetohydrodynamic motors that superheat air, but you still have that pesky problem that you are relying on an atmosphere to get your speed.

      You could accelerate the vehicle in a rail gun or rocket sled until it reaches orbital velocity while it's still on the ground. Ballpark figure, at a (barely) survivable 20g, you'd need a 150km track to reach the 7.73km/s orbital velocity of a typical shuttle mission, ignoring air resistance. Except you can't ignore air resistance, because at 7.73km/sec at 1 atmosphere, you'd burn the vehicle to a toasty crisp.

      Even if you postulated antigrav, you still need to generate lateral acceleration to achieve orbital velocity, which again requires a self contained rocket, or an atmosphere.

      A beanstalk (space elevator)? Heck, maybe we've already got the technology to do it, but we're not going to, not for a long, long time.

      So, really, if you've got any ideas about what to use as an alternative to rocketry today, let's hear them. I'm fresh out.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Pointless by Oggust · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, actually a ramjet is way more efficient than a rocket. A really good rocket motor gets an Isp of just over 400. (A little more if you feel like using F2 or ClF5 or other really nasty stuff, but nothing that dramatic.) A ramjet gets around 3000. It's a lot simpler than the rocket, and it doesn't have to carry it's own oxisizer, so it stands to reason. On the other hand, it doesn't work in space, and it needs to move a a pretty good speed before it starts working at all. /August.

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
    7. Re:Pointless by TOTKChief · · Score: 2

      Hey, when you come up with a propulsion system that has T/W > 1, let me know. Until we can get off the ground with something else, the really cool and exotic [and, yes, efficient] stuff--like ion propulsion, ram jets, et cetera--is going to be the domain of spaceflight only. Even then, you're going to have to get that stuff up there somehow. Too bad people are so scared of using fission to provide heat energy for conversion into propulsion [and onboard power]. That could make things really easy, actually ...

    8. Re:Pointless by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Well...if beamed EM to electricity is viable, then how about using that to heat self-contained propellant? Sure, it's technically still a rocket, but most of the reaction energy comes from outside the ship, so it's not 100% self-contained.

      Or, once you get going at a high enough Mach, atmospheric friction will turn air into plasma. Use standard magnetic controls to keep this plasma off of your craft, trapping the plasma so it itself is what impacts even more air and turns it into plasma, then send this plasma out the back. Basically a more ambitious version of the SR-71's "aerodynamics only seal up when heated by fast travel".

      And, of course, there's direct interaction with the Earth's magnetic field - though that takes a lot of power, especially at those (relative to significant magnetic field strength) low altitudes where the atmosphere exists.

    9. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm....if you have anti-grav, why do you even need to orbit?

    10. Re:Pointless by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "rocket sled" (actually a linear induction motor used as a railgun of sorts, also called a mass driver by Gerry O'Neill and company, and first dubbed a "catapult" by Heinlein and something totally else by Clarke) doesn't have to accelerate the ship to orbital speed. That's ludicrous.

      It merely has to replace the first stage, and that only requires a few miles of track, an upwardly sloping mountainside, and a few G's of acceleration. One the ship leaves the mouth of the catapult, it's moving fast enough for a very small fuel tank to kick it all the way to orbit -- not to mention the fact that at mountain height, it's past a goodly chuck of the atmosphere pretty quickly.

      It's surprising how little ship you need to achieve orbit once you get rid of the first few miles and get some speed buildup. The ship is SMALL.

      A catpult would prolly use maglev, be pretty cheap once the thing is built, and only require electricity to operate instead of rocket fuel. And it is reusable to a ridiculous degree.

    11. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      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?

      Still on the island with Gilligan and the Skipper. The Howells died off a few years back, and there was much feasting (but we really don't want to talk about that).

      The Professor says he'll be able to achieve sub-orbital velocities with his latest coconut-powered palm-fiber composite rocket, the Li'l Buddy II, sometime before the natives return next spring for the annual "cook-out".

      Hope this helps.

      Anonymous cowards think it's hilarious that Slashdot readers alone of all web visitors need help to figure out where links go.

    12. Re:Pointless by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Let me run "a few miles" at "a few G's" by my (admittedly rusty) physics, rounding up to the nearest power of ten (as tradition dictates ;-) ).

      Let's say 10km @ 100m/s2 (~10G). s=1/2at^2, t^2=2s/a, t^2 = 20000/100 = 200, t = 14.14s, so v = t * a = 14.14 * 100 = 1.4 km/s, and you need 7.73 km/s for a 300km orbit.

      What am I missing? Is this really a big enough fuel saving to justify building and maintaining 10km of track?

      I'm not trolling, I do actually agree that this is the most practical solution we have right now, but I can't get the maths to work out.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    13. Re:Pointless by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Ummm....if you have anti-grav, why do you even need to orbit?

      I'm kind of assuming that it takes power to stay up. Plus, you generally want satellites to orbit. Geostationary? Although if you can shove things out to the moon and catch them there, you can fuel and launch them on much more cheaply.

      Hey, wait, why am I debating "sufficiently advanced technology"? We don't have that yet. ;-)

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    14. Re:Pointless by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Wow -- actually that's a pretty short track for orbital velocity!

      Well, you couldn't get orbital speed in the atmosphere, so the track doesn't have to be that long.

      We build interstate highway systems that need rebuilding every few years, and no one notices the cost. The track would cost tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions. The first one would, any way, because it's all new engineering and that means mistakes and redos. The successor catapults would be cheaper.

      Back to the answer: you only need to get the ship going a bit -- and I don't have the maths, just the studies over the years by NASA, the National Space Society, endless seminars, fifty years and more of maths, starting with Sir Arthur Clarke -- you need to get the ship up the first few miles, and moving at a few hundred miles per hour, to totally eliminate the need for a first stage. Remember, the first stage is the biggest, and the reasons for that are that it's in the densest part of the atmosphere, and is lifting not only the entire structure of the successor stages and the the orbital craft, but it's OWN weight and the weight of its fuel, an enormous sum.

      And don't forget, you can't get it going too fast, or sonic booms play havoc with the catapult, and friction fries the ship itself. No, you can't get orbial velocity in the atmosphere... but you can get the puppy moving pretty fast before the rockets kick in.

      Kick out the first stage, and you can have your spaceplane without a giant fuel tank and strap-on boosters. Something the size of a big Lear jet, maybe.

      Also, if you want to launch unmanned vehicles, you could harden the payload to take many more G's, and boost that acceleration UP, getting a huge piece of orbital velocity out of the way.

      Piece of trivia: remember "When Worlds Collide", the George Pal SF movie of the fifties? They used, yup, a railway up a mountain to get the ark up to speed before the rockets cut in. I remember watching that image as a kid...

      The maths and studies have been done over and over again, and they are buletproof.

  10. Wait a sec by British · · Score: 1, Troll

    "isopropyl alcohol and liquid oxygen. "

    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 ,EZ-Rocket doesn't sound too safe to me. Nor does "Nuclear Reactor In a Box"

    1. Re:Wait a sec by corebreech · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure bin Laden has one on order.

    2. Re:Wait a sec by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Insightful
      H2O2 is a walk in the park compared to liquid O2. Both are quite nasty, but people usually survive a dousing in 95% hydrogen peroxide: yes, you are porcelain white for a few weeks, but you live. That assumes you have a decent shower on-site (think water-tower, not hose-pipe.) O2 accidents of similar magnitude kill you: cryogenic freezing, plus O2 mixes with organics to form pressure-sensitive explosive slush.


      LOX eats through bad rocket elements (e.g. below spec piping and valves) much faster than H2O2, and the low temp makes valve sticking and thermal mismatch failures much more likely.


      To get equivalent safety, working with LOX will cost 10 times as much.

    3. Re:Wait a sec by caldodge · · Score: 1
      Actually, I believe the fuel was the big problem, rather than the oxidizer (a major fuel ingredient was hydrazine hydrate).



      And anyway, the EZ-Rocket DOESN'T use hydrogen peroxide, so your comment isn't really relevant to its engine.


      Check out the Smithsonian's web page for some info.

    4. Re:Wait a sec by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To get equivalent safety, working with LOX will cost 10 times as much.


      Um, no, not really. First of all, high grade peroxide costs $0.50/lb for 70% grade in tankcar load quantities or larger, and $10/lb or so for 97% grade commercially concentrated (you can distill 90%+ yourself from 70%, but it requires significant processing equipment and has non-zero risk associated). LOX is cheaper than beer ($0.10/lb or less in large bulk quantities).


      Second of all, handling liquid oxygen and nitrogen grade cryogenics is pretty easy. LOX is used in nearly all hospitals for their oxygen feeds; there's usually a LOX tank out in the parking lot somewhere. You have to avoid using organic materials in the piping, but it's handled by relatively low-trained truckers distributing it, in tanker truckload quantities, moved around cities with little hassle or hazmat risk, every day. It has risks, and must be properly respected, but is not a problem.


      High-test peroxide is also subject to self-deomposition and detonation in extreme cases.


      We have lively regular debates about the merits of various propellants in online forums like
      sci.space.policy
      and
      sci.space.tech.
      Talk to professional rocket engineers and nobody is even vaguely afraid of LOX. It's not everybody's first choice, but it's not a bad one.


      Peroxide isn't the worst choice by far (FLOX, Liquid Fluorine, Nitrogen Tetroxide, Liquid Ozone, Chlorine PentaFluoride all are far farworse). But LOX is a really good choice.

    5. Re:Wait a sec by Rocket+Shadow · · Score: 1

      The EZ-Rocket is safe to fly. Webuild safe rocket engines. In fact, every time we test an engine we stand beside it. This is to show that the way we, XCOR, design and build rocket engines is different that what has gone before. We are not after the last erg of energy, what we are after is safe, reliable, restartable, reusable engines for various applications -- many of which have nothing to do with getting to space but which we can't talk about because our business plan is built on them. ;->

      Aleta Jackson, one of XCOR's founders

  11. CYBORG MONK3Y IS A LAME DICK LICKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    yes and he also likes to look at goatse.cx. Please bite my ass now.

    1. Re:CYBORG MONK3Y IS A LAME DICK LICKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:CYBORG MONK3Y IS A LAME DICK LICKER! by Fecal+Troll+Matter · · Score: -1

      Cyborg who?

      This is a fucking billboard, man. It's my fucking billboard, so YOU fuck off.

      Fucknard.

  12. Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by ekrout · · Score: 3, Funny
    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.

    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
    1. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by Silver222 · · Score: 1
      You forgot the always popular "Mike Hunt". :)

      --
      "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
    2. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by unitron · · Score: 3, Funny
      He pronounces it Roo-tan.

      What about Nascar's unfortunately named Dick Trickle? Maybe his parents were operating on the "Boy Named Sue" theory.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somebody in my phonebook from back home had "Haywood Jablowme" registered... it was great

    4. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike Oxwollen. It was never in Simpsons, but it's a great one nonetheless. We pulled this on a sub once in high school, but she was like 70 or something, so she didn't get it. I guess you start forgetting about those things when you're that old...

    5. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this guy at my college faculty who sends out the emails for the network updates. His name is Richard Wack. That should have sent red flags up w/ his parents when naming him.

    6. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by freakonaleash881 · · Score: 1
      I remember back in High School at a State Beta club convention I wrote Hewood Djablomi on my name tag. When someone would ask my name, I would spit it out real fast in a thick accent (arabic would have been nice, but I don't think people would have believed it coming from a pasty white Irish-German looking person =).

      It was hilarious for about 30 minutes, until our chaperone caught me. He made me change it, but he was laughing his ass off.

      --

      Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo...a star shines on the hour of our meeting
    7. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by satanami69 · · Score: 1

      No joke, my ethics teacher in 7th and 8th grade was Jack Hoff. My football coach's name was Dickey and his wife was Ivanna. I am not lying.

      --

      --
      I really hate Dan Patrick.
    8. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by msheppard · · Score: 2

      Rutan (ROO-TAN) is a pretty famous name in the field current aviation. Him and his brother are building all sorts of crazy-kewl airplanes.

      Check out Burt's autobiography

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    9. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by snilloc · · Score: 1
      No shit.

      Dick Cummings - a now retired teacher from my high school days. And rumor has it that he was once in the navy, meaning that there was once a Seaman (ahem!) Dick Cummings.

      The strangest thing is, I don't think his name was Richard... I'm not sure where he got the nickname Dick.

    10. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're lying.

  13. Rocket racing may be the "killer app". by Nindalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Rocket racing may be the "killer app". by cgleba · · Score: 1

      Hell, NASCAR won't even allow their cars to surpass 1960's technology (carburators, no turbo, etc).

      What makes anyone think Americans will embrace rocket racing if they can't even understand a fuel injector?

    2. Re:Rocket racing may be the "killer app". by Detritus · · Score: 1

      NASCAR would like to have some drivers survive to race next season.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Rocket racing may be the "killer app". by macsforever2001 · · Score: 2

      Think of how much money goes into car racing. Rocket racing would be an incredible spectacle.

      Yes, but think about the audience for auto racing - namely rednecks. Rednecks like auto racing because they drive too and watching people drive cars fast apparently makes them think their dick will become larger when they drive their trucks fast. I say apparently because I don't know since I think auto racing is boring and stupid.

      Rocket racing won't have an audience because rednecks *don't drive rockets*. Despite the obvious phallic look of rockets, rednecks will not go to rocket races in droves.

      Furthermore, auto races are confined to small stadiums where the cars tediously go around and around the same tiny track many times. Rockets cannot be confined to such a small sanitized "track" and instead will blast-off in a few seconds never to be seen again. I suppose rocket racing is more akin to the even more boring drag racing which has a much smaller audience.

      Geeks, the only remaining potential audience for this will go to something significant like STS launches. STS = the space shuttle program for those not in the know.

      That leaves redneck geeks as the only people who will go to rocket races!

    4. Re:Rocket racing may be the "killer app". by tb3 · · Score: 1

      Why? They get much higher attendance if the rednecks think someone's going to die.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    5. Re:Rocket racing may be the "killer app". by TOTKChief · · Score: 2

      Rocket racing would be an incredible spectacle ... but it'll be hard to get much detail. You'll have to watch from far away for safety and perspective reasons--if you have ever been to any CART or NASCAR race, you know you just feel the cars go by you, really.

      As for profit potentials, I'll agree that they exist, but at this point, no one's put up the money to make it happen. That we've seen scads of money thrown after bad business ideas in the last 25 years tells me something about the risk/reward function on private orbital flights.

    6. Re:Rocket racing may be the "killer app". by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who absolutely hates the term "killer app?"

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    7. Re:Rocket racing may be the "killer app". by Tetsujin28 · · Score: 2

      Am I the only one who absolutely hates the term "killer app?"

      And why hasn't it been used as a horror movie title yet?

      --
      - - - -
      The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
  14. Corporate sponsorship by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    Once this gets going, I can see corporate sponsorship coming in, in a big way. Sort of like what we see in auto racing right now.

    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"
  15. WTC Truth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    You know what happened Sept. 11.

    4000 Jews stayed away.

    Mossad wants to destroy America!!!

    See the proof here!!!

    1. Re:WTC Truth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      I cannot route to that web site at work. I believe this is because my corporation is run by Jews.

      However, having readthis at home, I feel enlightened about the evil machinations of the Jews.

  16. Rocket Racing? by Millyways · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Rocket Racing? by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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?

      The best thing would be a one way run away from a crowd, say out into a desert.

      Just make sure the chutes do not fail.

      Sound like something that could be cool out in a place like Death Valley.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    2. Re:Rocket Racing? by Spootnik · · Score: 1

      If your main parachute doesn't open, how long do you have to deploy your reserve? The whole rest of your life.

    3. Re:Rocket Racing? by slow_flight · · Score: 1

      The article concerns manned aircraft powered by rocket engines, not ballistic missiles. They appear to be fully controllable, and no more dangerous to bystanders than any other plane at an airshow.

      --

      Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
    4. Re:Rocket Racing? by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Or Black Rock, home of Burning Man...which is where a bunch of rocket enthusiasts already do many of their test launches.

  17. Unit conversions by metricman · · Score: 3, Informative

    160knots = 296 km/h
    6200 feet = 1890m
    400 lb = 1779N

    A cool feature for slashcode would be automatic unit conversions.

    1. Re:Unit conversions by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You're qualified to work at NASA.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Unit conversions by os2fan · · Score: 2
      Please get the units right. These are measures quoted in the article, rended into the confusing metrics, for people insisting on using that system.

      160 knots = 160.1023 knots (metric)
      6200 ft = 1889.76 m.
      400 lb = 1.779 kN.

      Areal and nautical speeds are measured in knots, not miles per hour, or km/h or cms. Force of engines is measured in kilonewtons, not newtons.

      But what would you convert the units into? Metric, or regular.

      The whole idea of metric is that we should put all of our eggs in the one basket, so that people with certian brain defects would not be able to understand it. I found little logical in it to understand what people see so wonderful in it, and I have studied it for thirty years now.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    3. Re:Unit conversions by canadian_right · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have trouble with metric? Whats so hard about powers of ten?
      Take temperature for example:
      Imperial, freezing is at 32, boiling at 212
      celcius, freezing at 0, boiling at 100

      distance
      12 inches to the foot, 3 feet to the yard, 5000 and change feet to the mile, anyone know how long a furlough is?

      10 mm to the cm
      100 cm to the meter
      1000 meters to the kilometer

      1000 ml to the liter

      miligrams, grams, kilograms
      its obvious what these are just from the name.

      Imperial uses ounces for both wieght and volume!

      Metric features a uniform system of naming:
      mili - thousandth
      centi - hundreth
      kilo - thousand
      etc...

      Metric is MUCH simpler than imperial. The same obstinace that has the whole world speaking english is the only reason the USA hasn't switch to metric.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    4. Re:Unit conversions by os2fan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Imperial, freezing is at 32, boiling at 212
      celcius, freezing at 0, boiling at 100

      Nothing special about these temperature points. The only one that matters is absolute zero = 0. I mean, there are 180 degrees fahrenheit because of historical accident, but at least Fahrenheit adjusted his scale so that fractions would not occur in normal use. The original Roemer units were four times the size. (ie Fahr / 4 both size and scale).

      Reameur scale is at least logical in that its degrees represent the increase in volume as 1000 units of alcohol are heated. It ranges from 0 to 80.

      Without further comment, the Celcius temperature had freezing at 100, and boiling at 0. The current scale was called Centigrade, but Celcuis was coopted when everyone forgot about the mark I fiasco.

      AngleYes, the wonderful simplicity of the metric system, which was intended to replace all measures, did supprisingly poor on angle and time. Despite the so-called decimal advantage, and that the kilometre was intended to be a centisimal minute at the surface of the earth, and so replace nautical mile, neither the decimal division of the quadrant, or day took off. When you calculate the speeds in decimal days, you will start to see the silliness of unrestrained decimals:

      1 km/h = 2.4 km/H = 0.24 m/S, and
      1 mph = 4 km/H = 0.4 m/S.
      Speed limit in usa = 55 mph = 220 km/H.
      (1d = 10 H = 1000 M = 10000 S.

      Distance. A furlong is 660 feet, as anyone can see. A mile is clearly 5280 feet, as it should.

      Imperial ounces don't exist. They're avoirdepoise, troy, or fluid ounces. The context defines the missing adjective. Just as it does with cubic, square and linear measure.

      And while you're at it, I notice that you are supprisingly silent on mill, a length, angle and volume, or K, a number, temperature, distance, mass, speed. The truth is, that relying too heavily on a matrix naming does lead to lots of confusion. We won't even go into the prefixes like deci vs deka.

      10 mm to the cm
      100 cm to the meter
      1000 meters to the kilometer

      1000 ml to the liter

      It is of course interesting here, that apart from preaching how the metric system uses prefixes and so forth, how the "centilitre" is noticably absent. Even more so the nightmare of deci- vs deka, hecto, or Myria-. Oh well. There goes consistancy.

      Both systems suffer from the Roman weight-fraction legacy. An uncia was a 12th measure, this gives the foot of 12 inches, and the troy lb of 12 ounces, and an hour of 12 ounces. Mind you, any metric unit divides into 1000 mills. Depending on context, the builder's mill is the mm, where the chemist's mil is a ml. And we won't even worry about "gammas", a mass and magnetic field, and "lambdas" a volume, and "micros" a mass, not to be confused with "microns", a length, or "ohm", a capacity and resistance unit, or "farad" (a capacatance) vs "faraday" (any of a number of electrical charge units).

      Metric is still bound by the same sorts of mentality that drives the imperial system. One talks of millions of kilometres, not *gigametres, or "tonnes", not "Megagrams". So much for "logic". Mind you, the names are wildly long that people look for shorter names.

      And we won't even worry too much about a large number of special symbols that you need to express its units (eg raised 2, 3, greek Omega, mu). Like, you can't write sq m, you have to put m^2. Where I can write ft or Ft or FT, mm, Mm and MM can be milli or mega- metres.

      What's even more impressing is that the prefixes are both patchy, and overload letters, for example, m and M differ by nine orders of magnitude (milli, and mega), and somewhere we got to squease a third m for micro into this lot. Luckily, we can steal the greek mu for this end.

      The whole prefix multiple system has been coopted into computing, where one can use K as 1000 or 1024, depending on what your needs are. Megs, Gigs and so on are simply K*K, K*K*K &c. So a 1.44 MB floppy is actually 1.44 * 1000 * 1024. Hmmm.

      Metric is MUCH simpler than imperial.

      I seriously doubt this, too. The numbers that metric are easier to convert between one and another unit, but I can not seem to recall doing conversions from capacity to volume units all that often, that rough rules could not handle. But to achieve this simplicity, much had to be sacraficed.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    5. Re:Unit conversions by kilrogg · · Score: 1
      160 knots = 160.1023 knots (metric)

      Who ever managed to get that into the SI standard should be shot (assuming your not lying). The beauty and simplicity of the metric system is that there's only one unit for one kind of measurement. Unit like that (and the metric tone, etc) bastardise the system.

      Areal and nautical speeds are measured in knots

      He was putting it into units the rest of the world is familiar with. For us common folk, 296km/h tells us more than the archaic 160 knots.

      Force of engines is measured in kilonewtons, not newtons ... I have studied it[the metric system] for thirty years now.

      yikes, you'll need to study a bit more cause you obviously don't get it (hint: kilo is a multiplier prefix, it just scales the value).

    6. Re:Unit conversions by sjoperkin · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed by the sheer length and value in this thread of discussion. It is also reassuring that there are people who find it rewarding to discuss these issues. Maybe there is hope for mankind afterall...

    7. Re:Unit conversions by marm · · Score: 3, Informative

      The whole idea of metric is that we should put all of our eggs in the one basket, so that people with certian brain defects would not be able to understand it. I found little logical in it to understand what people see so wonderful in it, and I have studied it for thirty years now.

      Umm, no. The beauty of metric, or rather the more modern form of metric called SI (Systeme Internationale) is that:

      a) multiples of a unit are always in base 10, so it is obvious that 27km = 27000m, and it is just as simple to write that in scientific notation (i.e. 27km = 2.7x10^4m) - you try telling me what 27 miles is in feet without reaching for a calculator

      and b) there is a small set of measured base units (there are 7 - metres, kilograms, seconds, amperes, kelvins, moles and candelas) and every other unit used throughout science and engineering is directly derived from these base units without any fudging

      Quite apart from the obvious benefits for calculation, it also makes things much easier to understand in your head - you only need to know the size of the 7 base units to be able to have some idea of exactly what each derived unit means. 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.

      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. Science has adopted SI worldwide, partly for its ease and simplicity, and yes, partly because scientists want to be able to understand each other. In most countries, engineers have also adopted the system for similar reasons, and even the general populace understands most of it thanks to everyday things being measured in SI units or multiples of - masses in grams or kilograms, volume in litres, distances in metres or kilometres.

      Anyway, in SI Units...

      160 knots = 82 ms^-1 (metres per second)
      6200 ft = 1900 m (yes, this one was right :)
      400 lbf = 1800mkgs^-2 (meters per kilogram per second, aka newtons)

      All conversions rounded to 2 significant figures... now, who's going to be the first to complain about the use of significant figures? ;)

    8. Re:Unit conversions by os2fan · · Score: 2
      The nautical mile is intended to be a arc minute at the surface of the earth, so that angular minutes are read directly to nautical miles.

      An imperial nautical mile is 6080 ft, a metric nautical mile is 1852 metres. The original metric system was intended to be a circle divided into 400 degrees of 100 minutes. In this version, the kilometre would be the replacement for the nautical mile. But the angle system never took off.

      So hour is not a metric measure, so why don't you just say 82.3 m/s and be done with it. Or are you going to cling to your illogical hours? For us common folk, 160 knots says it all.

      Force of engines are measured in a common unit, which happens to be the kilonewton. Just like clothing is measured in centimetres, not metres or millimetres. Hint: people compare numbers on the expectation that a standard unit will be used where convenient.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    9. Re:Unit conversions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are so many misunderstandings in the parent post to your post that I have to wonder how you haven't lost all hope for mankind. Most obvious is the mill-confusion. Milli is a prefix which always means 10^-3. It is never a length or a volume or whatever. If something is 13 mills, then that's exactly the same as saying it is 0.013, a number without a unit. Also, if you don't want to use the greek mu, use 10^-6.

    10. Re:Unit conversions by LegendLength · · Score: 1
      It is of course interesting here, that apart from preaching how the metric system uses prefixes and so forth, how the "centilitre" is noticably absent. Even more so the nightmare of deci- vs deka, hecto, or Myria-. Oh well. There goes consistancy.
      The prefixes aren't really an issue when you think about it. Most people would agree to use only scientific notation instead of prefixes if this mattered enough.

      I agree though that more standardization needs to be done with units. The 1K = 1024 bytes things is pretty gay. Or maybe I haven't really thought enough about why 2^10 is the base unit for measuring integer amounts of things in IT storage.

      Oh well, too lazy to google for it atm...
    11. Re:Unit conversions by os2fan · · Score: 2

      And, while you're at it, so is inch=ounce=1/12, scruple=1/288, minim, minute=1/60, second=1/3600, third=1/216000, drachm=1/96, calculus=1/6912, nail=clove=1/16, firkin=quart=quarter=1/4. They're all factions.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    12. Re:Unit conversions by os2fan · · Score: 2
      The real issue is that the tables only show a list of accepted units, not their usage. You don't go saying you're 1 m 90 cm high. You say 190 cm, not 1.9 m or 1900 mm.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    13. Re:Unit conversions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "second" is not 1/3600, it is the base unit of time. You can't say "7200 secondmeters" and mean "2 meters". "milli" however denotes only the fraction, not the unit.

    14. Re:Unit conversions by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      I think people are confusing SI and metric. For example, metric uses litres, while SI uses metres cubed.

      knots are not SI. m/s is SI.

    15. Re:Unit conversions by os2fan · · Score: 2
      second is short for second minute. You do say so many seconds of arc, time or excess, because the unit and division is understood.

      You DONT need it to be a prefix for it to be a fraction. Please understand!!!!

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    16. Re:Unit conversions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really don't get it, do you? "second" is not short for anything.



      "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
      from: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html



      The base unit of time is called "second", not "second of time" or "second minute". Let me repeat that: "second" is a unit. It implies that the number which it qualifies is meant to be an amount of time. The term "second" is also part of the names of other units. That does not make the convention invalid that, when used precisely, a second is always a duration (and never an angle, for example).



      I begin to understand how there can be people at NASA fucking things up the way they did.

    17. Re:Unit conversions by os2fan · · Score: 2
      Is it me, or you, not getting it.

      Yes, I am familiar with this definition. I am also familiar with the other definitions. The one that takes precedence is 1 day = 86400 seconds: that is, 1 day = 24 hours, 1 hour = 60 minutes, 1 minute = 60 second (minutes). All other definitions are adjusted to preserve this relation.

      Look at the source, not this week's definition. Previously 1 second was a fraction of the mean year 1900.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    18. Re:Unit conversions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy. If you really don't want to talk in terms of SI definitions, you're right. Second is a fraction of the mean year 1900. But that is still a duration, not an angle. And if you decide on "second" being the base unit, it doesn't make sense to call it a fraction. Instead, other units are multiples or fractions of that base unit. And any unit always qualifies the number, it is never a numeric fraction. But I guess I might as well shut up, you're obviously not interested in seeing the difference between the concept of a fraction and the concept of a unit.

    19. Re:Unit conversions by os2fan · · Score: 2
      The current SI definitions, except for the Ampere, represent the latest constructions for the units. In practice, the second is seen as a second division of the minute, this a division of an hour.

      The definition of the second has changed to more stable measures as the ability to create clocks got more accurate.

      The second as a fraction of a year is never intended to be a second of arc, as applied to a year=360 degrees, This is about 24 seconds long, and the sort of unit used by the Babylonians.

      The ampere is defined to make the constant in Ampere's equation equal to 2e-7 N/A^2.

      The older style of fractions and relation is to say something like 2 deg 8 min of arc. I have seen a temperature given as 38 deg 22 min Fahr.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
  18. Facking bored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Jesus H Christ I am so bored. Somebody post some porno for my amusement. Now. This instant.

    1. Re:Facking bored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Here follows the ULTIMATE in porn. You will come all over yourself when you read it:

      goat

    2. Re:Facking bored by Fecal+Troll+Matter · · Score: -1

      http://poopsex.com

      Mmm, poooooop...

  19. What does hydrogen peroxide have to do with it? by Nindalf · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:What does hydrogen peroxide have to do with it? by MarkusQ · · Score: 1
      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.

      The original point was someone advocating hydrogen peroxide as an alternate to liquid oxygen. It's much safer, but also a little over twice as dense per free oxygen. Sometimes the context gets lost when posts are reparented.

      -- MarkusQ

  20. R0B3R7 FR0$7 P0$7! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    R0B3R7 FR0$7 1$ 4N 13117 H4XX0R!

    I am lame. Get over it.

  21. Zefram Cochrane first flight. by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    lol, so when are the Vulcans going to land!

    1. Re:Zefram Cochrane first flight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, thats funny

  22. I Would Like To Order a Dozen by tealover · · Score: -1

    Yours Lovingly,

    Usama Bin Laden

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  23. umm, what about balloons? by Telek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Suidae · · Score: 1

      The primary issue with getting into orbit isn't going up, its with going sideways at around 17,000 mph. Last time I checked zepplins were, due to technical limitations, traveling somewhat slower than that.

    2. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Chakat · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the poster's point. Instead of having the entire balloon structure being sent into orbit, they're talking about using the balloon as the first stage. Once you get up to about 80,000 feet, or so, you release the balloons, light the rockets, and leave this miserable rock behind. Having a nice slow zeppelin circling the earth is silly, but using one to bypass most of the heavy part of the atmosphere is pretty smart

      --

      If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.

    3. Re:umm, what about balloons? by jeboyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The primary issue with getting into orbit isn't going up, its with going sideways at around 17,000 mph."

      True. On the other hand, there are definite advantages to getting above a high percentage of that pesky thick layer of air that seems to blanket this planet.

      * There's a lot of aerodynamic drag associated with the passage through the dense atmosphere at low altitudes Ever notice the Shuttle and other rockets throttle down at the "max Q" (maximum aerodynamic pressure) point? That (inefficient) action is necessary to limit the forces so the vehicle won't break up.

      * Although the altitude balloons can reach is much, much less than that of orbit, there is still a measurable advantage in necessary delta-v (velocity increment needed to reach orbit) from a high-altitude launch. I haven't look at the exact numbers in years, but it's on the order of percents--not insignificant when dealing with the tight margins inherent in launching.

    4. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Gorobei · · Score: 5, Informative

      The main reason is the FAA. If you want to be a high alt attempt, you need to file a lot of paperwork concerning your flight plan and risks to populated areas/foreign airspace. In theory, you could get approval for an orbital shot from two places in the USA (Black Rock and Alaska,) if you have a self-destruct device on board. Note that a self-destruct doesn't make the rocket vanish, it just puts the debris in a safe zone. Now, if you want to float to 120,000 feet before launch, your debris zone is about the size of the Pacific Ocean. You don't get approval, end of story.

    5. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      Sigh. What DO they teach kids in school these days?

      It's not UP that matters, it's the speed.

      Picture this: You fire a shell from a cannon. It shoots up .. and down .. in a ballistic arc. Now, imagine this same cannon firing a shell at the horizon - it curves up ... and over. Fire it with a little more oomph and it is hurled over the horizon, never to return to ground, but endlessly circling the body it was fired from.

      And, yes I forget the actual speed needed for the shell to acheive orbit. Damned if I'll look it up - it's slashdot.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    6. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you are refering to a "rockoon".

      http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/lvs/rockoo n. htm

      They were invented by Dr. Van Allen and some of his associates. They were only for sounding rockets, which explore the upper atmosphere but don't go into orbit. If you want to go into orbit, you still need a lot of horizontal velocity so the rockoon is not as handy for that.

    7. Re:umm, what about balloons? by maetenloch · · Score: 2, Informative

      JP Aerospace "America's OTHER Space Program" is doing this very thing. They used balloons to carry a launch platform and rocket to 26,000 ft where they launched the rocket. Now they're currently working up to being able to launch from 100,000 ft.

    8. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting some more distance between earth's center of mass and the launch platform increases the potential energy of the launch vehicle (equal to the minimum amount of energy needed to launch a rocket straight up from the ground which reaches the altitude of the balloon launch platform). That amount of energy would have to be in additional rocket fuel if the rocket were launched from ground. Launch mass increases cost because you need more fuel and more "rocket" to hold it together.

    9. Re:umm, what about balloons? by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      Picture this: You fire a shell from a cannon. It shoots up .. and down .. in a ballistic arc. Now, imagine this same cannon firing a shell at the horizon - it curves up ... and over. Fire it with a little more oomph and it is hurled over the horizon, never to return to ground, but endlessly circling the body it was fired from.

      Assuming there was no drag, this would make a highly elliptic orbit, which would return to the same point it was started from.... Adding drag would make matters worse, and have the craft crash back into earth even earlyer than a complete rotation...

    10. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Darth+Yoshi · · Score: 1
      can someone tell me why they're not interested in using balloons at all for reusable launch vehicles?

      The real reason is because the purpose behind XCOR is not (just) getting into space. The primary purpose behind XCOR is to build better rocket engines, getting into space is just a desirable side-effect. Until they have the capital and experience to build a real space ship, they are happy to build rocket-powered replica airplanes such as the NeX-1 and Me163 Komet II. In theory this gives them a revenue stream while building the technology and experience to tackle "the final frontier" (insert dramatic music here).


      In other words, they've taken a big problem (getting into space) and have just bitten off a piece of it (building a better rocket engine). Whether this approach is better or worse than attacking the entire problem at once is to be determined.

      --
      // TODO: fix sig
    11. Re:umm, what about balloons? by BigTom · · Score: 1

      They have. have a look at The DaVinci Project

    12. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Telek · · Score: 1

      that's a non starter.

      you simply drop. you'll reach 17,000mph in no time (you drop on an angle that is... plus you use your boosters once you're that high up to get you to that speed.) The combination of the two will give you all the speed you need with much less propellant.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    13. Re:umm, what about balloons? by benwb · · Score: 1
      Speed only matters if you're giving something an impulse and than no longer applying a force to it. Yes, if I hit a baseball and imart to it speed of ~7 miles/sec it will escape the earth's orbit. But the same baseball, if it could expend a force sufficent to accelerate, at let's say 40 feet/sec, for a long enough period of time would also escape orbit. No rocket made by human hand has ever achieved escape velocity on lift off.

      A good laymens explanation can be found in Robert A Heinlein's Rocketship Galileo

    14. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Telek · · Score: 1

      as I mentioned in other posts, by going up to 100,000ft you're at 10% of the original atmospheric density, and you also have a helluva lotta mgh working for you. just drop and accellerate and you can get your vertical velocity up very fast with a lot less propellant than you'd normally need to get to that point.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    15. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Telek · · Score: 2

      why am I the only one who seems this point?

      at 100,000ft you are not only at 10% of the original density, but you also have a lot of mgh potential energy. So you drop at an angle and you can get your vertical velocity up VERY FAST with a lot less propellant. Drop for about 10 seconds and then kick in your rockets and you're far ahead of the point where you would be if you had used only propellant to get there.

      And if you're wondering about orbital/escape speed, it's roughly 7KM/s for orbit and 11KM/s (which is root2 * 7KM/s) for escape, but these are fallicies. You can technically escape the planet at a velocity of 1cm/year, and you can also orbit at 200M/s. However using the GMM/r^2 = mv^2/r (which is how you determine all this from the beginning) at a distance of 0m off the surface you're at 7KM/s orbital speed that decreases the further that you get away from the planet.

      Go check out the JTrack 3D satellite tracker to get cool information about all of the orbits/speeds/etc of all of the satellites orbiting our planet.

      Anyways, I know what I'm talking about =)

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    16. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Telek · · Score: 2

      cool sounds like an interesting response.

      however I don't understand why your wreckage zone is that much higher.

      and besides, if you launch from near the ocean and float out into international space, do you still have those problems? surely if you're over the ocean you don't need to worry too much about debris falling on people. Nasa routinely dumps stuff all over the ocean all the time, it can't be that hard to make it a reasonably targeted zone.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    17. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise known as Orbital Velocity. If you exceed that by (x amount), you will have attained Escape Velocity and start heading off into space in a widening spiral/arc from the earth. Good fun!

    18. Re:umm, what about balloons? by Gorobei · · Score: 2

      The wreckage zone is much bigger for two reasons: you may need to abort during the climb to launch alt, and you don't know where the launch will take place.

      Assuming a 4 hour climb, you may pass through the jet stream (giving you a speed of 100 mph or more) and then get pushed around by the stratospheric winds. You might have travelled 300 miles or more in a relatively random direction. From this unknown location, you fire your rocket. In this thin air, it easily reaches Mach 4 and starts to go off course. You abort, and put the debris into a nice lob in the thin air. This gives you an additional couple of hundred miles in a random direction.

      Ok, I exaggerated a bit - the debris zone is in the 100,000 square mile range: the FAA wants numbers that show the chance of hitting a ship is .1% or so, airplane 1 in ten million or so. Plowing in foreign soil is a no-no. In theory, you could get the waiver, but it still seems easier to just tank up a big dumb booster, ideally launched from White Sands or similar, so you can avoid the FAA red tape.

  24. mod this down, and the parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Jews did not "stay away". Dig a little deeper and you'll see it too. Stop spreading misinformation.

    1. Re:mod this down, and the parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the servants of Allah tell us this is true. Why would they lie?

  25. more conversions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    900 fathoms = 327.27 rods
    120 gallons (UK) = 545.5 liters
    16 weeks (SE) = 4,838,400 seconds
    25 slugs = .3648 tonnes
    12 Calories = .013956 kiloWatt hours
    8000 atmospheres = 81,060,000 Pa (NZ)

  26. ah Crap! by OO7david · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  27. Rocket Dragsters... by gimmie_prozac · · Score: 1
    So how exactly do you hold a rocket drag race? Is the finish line held aloft by baloons? Or is it like: "first one to crack the ionosphere wins!" That second option sounds like some bad joke you'd hear on The Jetsons. Plus, if somebody false starts, you have to wait until the rocket comes back down to restart the race.

    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!

    1. Re:Rocket Dragsters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So how exactly do you hold a rocket drag race?

      You send them off, then you pick up the pieces and the one of whom most could be recovered wins, easy.

  28. I AM TEH LLAMA POOPERZ!!!11!1!!1!!!L OLOLOLOL!O!!L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Hemos and JonKatz made their way into the lab where the animal experiments were conducted. A cute, fuzzy rabbit had caught their eye...

    The evil duo quickly subdued the little lab rabbit. They strapped the now helpless animal's head to the sex table with hot leather. JonKatz had the urge, and removed his pants, which were now buldging. After slipping off his briefs, JonKatz tightly fastened the leather straps and was ready to begin.......

    JonKatz began to "grease up". Shoving endless amounts of vaseline and baby oil all around the rabbit's ass, he slid his purple head firmly into the rabbit's tight asshole. Even though the rabbit was slightly unconscious, screams of pain were constanly being emmited. Hemos reached for the chain whip and smacked the rabbit's soft nose until its face was soaked with blood. Now, with the rabbits head drooped over the edge of the table, JonKatz continued his sex hunt. His now tingling cock was pushed deeper and deeper through the thick layers of skin which covered the bowel tract. Five, six, seven, then finally all eight and 3/4 inches were plunged deep within the animal's love canal.

    JonKatz's manhood tingled with every slight movement of the now half alive rabbit. He began rhythmically sliding in and out, moaning with pleasure on every thrust. JonKatz worked himself into a hot orgasm. The blood, now coming steadily out of the rabbit's ass with every thrust of JonKatz's pelvis, could be heard dripping on the floor. JonKatz's rate increased and with a final push, he spurted creamy white love gel far up into the rabbit's bleeding ass.

    The blood and cum mixed together on the floor, which had now accumulated a large puddle. Unknown to JonKatz, the semen had acted as a powerful enemma for the rabbit and out ushered the contents of its intestine. The stool was loose and soft. It fell to the ground with a soft thud and broke into small pieces. The obnoxious smell caught JonKatz's attention, and no sooner had he fallen to the ground and began licking the large puddle of blood, sperm, and stool. Exited at JonKatz's enthusiasm, Hemos dropped to his knees and also began to slurp the foul mixture.

    After cleaning the floor with their tongues, JonKatz and Hemos checked on the battered lab rabbit. It was barely able to hold its head up, as it had lost control of most of its motor fuctions. Feeling no pity for this sexually mistreated animal, they unstrapped it and tossed it across the room, only to make a loud and deep thud against the wall. Its blood soaked fur left spatters of red stains everywhere it touched. Hemos reached for his chain whip, while JonKatz grabbed a pair of rusty hedge clippers (one of the many torture devices carried around for "convenience"). They made their way over to the rabbit. The rabbit was struggling for every last bit of air it could, just gasping and wheezing.

    "Awwwww. Poor little thing," Hemos maniacally laughed. He raised his arm and thrust the cold metal whip down, exposing the rabbit's bloody flesh. He kept whacking and whacking at the furry bag of blood. Then, when Hemos stopped to catch his breath, JonKatz stepped over with his rusty hedge clippers. He knelt over the rabbit who was knocking loudly on death's door. JonKatz took a quick glance at the clippers, grinned, and then thrust them deep into the body of the rabbit, obviously hitting many arteries. As the blood squirted into JonKatz's face he moved the clippers around in hopes to find a thick bone to crunch. "Aha! The femur!" he yelled out with excitement. JonKatz wedged the clippers against the bone. He opened them wide......then closed down on them with all his might. The bone could be heard deep inside the rabbit, being mutilated. Death had glazed the bunny's eyes.

    The rabbit lay dead, a bloody mess on the floor. Its bodily fluids freely surged across the tiled floor. Then with a look of extreme satisfaction, both JonKatz and Hemos lit up some smokes, gathered their belongings and quietly left the hospital grounds, knowing with confidence that they would strike again, somewhere, soon.

  29. It's all about velocity, not altitude. by Goonie · · Score: 2

    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?)
    1. Re:It's all about velocity, not altitude. by Chakat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, a balloon first stage is incorporated into a number of fairly credible amateur rocket designs. By using a balloon to bypass the heaviest 15-20 miles of the atmosphere, you're cutting down not only on drag, but distance. This means you have to carry considerably less fuel, leading to a smaller, cheaper, and possibly more reliable design. It probably won't be used for getting large multi-ton objects into space, but for a small one-two man capsule, or a small satelite, a balloon launch makes a good deal of sense.

      --

      If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.

    2. Re:It's all about velocity, not altitude. by Telek · · Score: 1

      Not at all!

      If you can raise yourself up to that height without use of propellant, just let go. coast down at an angle, plus use your thrusters THEN and you'll get up to speed a lot faster and with less propellant than if you started straight from the ground.

      So no, they're not on crack. You're getting esentially free energy, even if you only want to look at it in the form of Ep=mgh

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    3. Re:It's all about velocity, not altitude. by Telek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One other thing:

      if you can get 16km up (which is pretty easy even with a large load) you've cut out a LARGE portion of the density of the atmosphere. For every 16km up you're down to 1/10th of the density. So 16km up is 0.1atm and 32km up is 0.01atm.

      Needless to say 90% reduction in density leads to _significantly_ less air resistance. Now although air resistance is not a huge drag (no pun intended) it does play a part. Add to the equation now that you're 16km up without using any feul, and you have that much more potential energy to use to get up to speed.

      And the risk of building that is ... negligable. These things are, by definition, aerodynamic. If you drop the plane straight down all you have to do is pull back on the yoke and pretty soon you'll be flying vertical again. The balloon has to do nothing more than just drop the rocket.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
  30. Re:I AM TEH LLAMA POOPERZ!!!11!1!!1!!!L OLOLOLOL!O by Fecal+Troll+Matter · · Score: -1

    Dude, that's horrible, and totally plagiarism. I read that text years ago, you just substituted 2 queers for 2 more. I spit upon you.

  31. Special story for ALL Slashdot readers!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Running a dot com in Michigan is rough. When I inherited it, many
    people figured I would fail, but I'm still here. I work hard at it, real
    hard, and I've made it. I grew up in this business, but I moved away when
    I turned eighteen. I worked in advertising--never figured on a career in
    the internet.

    When Dad passed away and the business fell to me, though, I had some
    serious considerations. the "family business" was a going concern, three
    employees, and every one of them had a cock. I had long ago decided I was
    gay I often thought of the possibilities, but I knew better than to fuck
    with the hired hands. A few of them tried to come on to me, in fact, when
    I was in the office, thinking that if they could lay the boss's son,
    they'd soon be partners in a going concern. Wrong! Any stud who tried to
    fondle me or show me his cock was out of there faster than cheap beer
    through a wino. I had urges, though. I contained them with the employees,
    but one of those guys really got to me. His name was Hemos, Alex
    Hemos, and I thought he was just right. He always dressed to the nines,
    almost always in black. He was blond and tall. He also had a blond
    mustache. Something else about Hemos appealed to me. He was a fucking
    animal. I knew it. He used snuff, for one thing, and he worked out every
    day in the fitness gym. He smelled of tobacco and..man. He wasn't our most
    productive agent, but he was my favorite to look at. He was intensely
    masculine. He had a body like the stud pictured on the condom machine in
    the rest room. I could see his physique through his clothes.

    I never approached him, though, when Dad was running the company But when
    Dad died, and I was in the driver's seat, I had some heavy thoughts about
    Mr. Hemos. One evening I was in the office alone after hours, going
    through some of the paperwork, and he walked through the door. I nodded to
    him. That particular day, he wore a black Calvin Klein three-piece suit, a
    black one. He really looked "downtown." I don't know why, but that, suit
    really emphasized his, sexual equipment. The soft black fabric outlined
    Hemos's crotch-bulge per- fectly. I could see that Hemos was
    definitely not a shortie. The bulge at his fly was stallion-size. I
    started to pass the time of day, but before I could say anything, Hemos
    drew a pistol out of his pocket! Then I was scared! "Hey, what's going
    on?" I blurted. What was he upset about? Had he gone nuts? Why was he
    carrying a gun? My blood ran cold as he opened his mouth to speak. "C'mon
    outa there with your hands up!" Huh? From behind me stepped a man with
    hands in the air. In his right hand, aimed at the ceiling! I gazed in
    horror. Hemos had caught an armed robber! I immediately dialed
    nine-one-one and summoned the cops. While the police were on their way, I
    tied up the robber with a telephone cord. I spoke to Hemos gratefully,
    in a shaking voice, "You probably saved my life! You scared the hell out
    of me, though, but thanks." He smiled. "Didn't have time for words." After
    the police came, arrested the robber, and filled out their reports,
    Hemos lingered in the office and we sat and shot the bull. I was still
    shaken from the experience but had developed another emotion about as
    strong. I stood up and moved a little closer to him. "You got any close
    friends?" I asked.

    "No," he said, and he blushed! I inched over, moving close.

    "That's strange," I murmured in a low voice. "You look like a real hunk to
    me." He smiled at that, and I could see the stars would going to be lucky
    for me that night. "Let me take you out for a drink. Ever been to the
    Trojan Slave?" he asked.

    "No. Is that a bar?"

    "Yeah. I think you'll like it. We can go in my car." Once on the road in
    his Beemer, I sat so close to him, my shoulders brushed his. He looked
    into my face with a little smile. At a stoplight, I took his chin in my
    hand, lifted his mouth to mine and kissed him. Then I put my hand on that
    giant bulge in his crotch, and was he hung! It was solid meat--no folds of
    cloth in there! "Lemme do something to show you my gratitude," I purred in
    his ear, biting it. He grunted, and I could feel his heart pounding. I
    pulled down his zipper and got it out. Damn, that boy had a banana the
    size of a shotgun barrel and longer than a ticker tape! I stroked it, and
    it hardened! I played with it, and he writhed happily in his seat, then he
    felt a sucking mouth on his big gearshift! I gasped. He was really
    stupendous; big-cocked and with a luscious pair of balls. I teased his
    pecker, which burgeoned into something even big- ger in my mouth! My
    tongue snaked and writhed around his cockhead, and my hand cupped his
    balls and grabbed hold of his cockshaft. I was in heat in a second! After
    a few seconds of that treatment, I unloaded such a wad of come, I knew I
    got a two-ball shot! I choked and gulped at the amount of sperm that boy
    could shoot! He shot me so much of his masculine sour-cream, it dripped
    down my chin and splattered all over the place. We never made it to the
    Trojan Slave. "How'd you like to stop by my place?" he said as soon as he
    could speak.

    "Yeah," I grunted. Once in his apartment, I thought we were going to have
    good ol' session of sex, but he surprised me. He wrapped a loop of cord
    around my wrists and pulled them behind my back. "Gonna lasso me in?" I
    chuckled, but he pulled that rope tight! He got some leather thongs from a
    drawer. "Wondered when I'd get to use these," he muttered. "Hey, just a
    damn minute," I gasped, but he wrapped a leather gag over my mouth! It was
    an old thing, and it stunk! As he put it on me, I realized from the smells
    that it was a leather jockstrap. I tried to struggle away, but he had me!
    He looped a leather strap around my ankles and bound them together. "Now,
    boss," he grunted with a bass voice, "let's see what you've got!" With
    that, he got out a carving knife! While I held my breath, he sank the
    blade under the waistband of my pants and SLASHED! With more swipes of
    that razor-sharp blade, he slit the legs of my pants open. Then he simply
    pulled my slashed pants away He cut away the pants of $700 suit! With
    another slash, my jockey shorts became white cotton ribbons. "Yeah, there
    it is," he chortled as my rampant cock sprang up to slap against my belly.

    He had destroyed a good set of clothes, but I had never been so erotically
    stripped in my life. If I weren't bound so tightly in his ropes and
    leather thongs, I would have sucked his cock off! He wasn't finished,
    though. He brought out a shorter, finer leather thong like a black cowhide
    shoestring. He wrapped it around my scrotum and cinched it tight! "MMMMM!"
    I gasped through the leather gag! Strangling my balls like that sent a
    stab of pain through my groin! Then he picked me up and laid me face-down
    over a leather footstool in front of his TV set. Next he unbound my
    ankles, but he tied one to the leg of the couch and the other to the
    handle of a corner table. I was as splayed out as a whore. I looked back.
    I felt my cock dripping pre-cum as I saw him stripping for action! He
    undid the buttons of his vest, then his shirt, and his pecs were
    magnificent, his nipples hard, pointed knobs. He unzipped his pants and
    let them drop, then grasped his underwear and pulled it down. I saw his
    big cock again. He had a meat like Hercules, with a huge corona. He had
    what it took to turn me on. His smooth, red shaft was at least 10 inches
    long. It jerked in his grip, springing from golden yellow prick-hairs in a
    thatch between his thighs. He crawled onto my back like the stockbrokers'
    bull, and his knotted chest hair grazed my back with a tickling scratch.
    Upending my rump, he wasted no time in lodging his big cock flare at the
    opening of my juicy hole. With a grunt and a lunge, that urban cowboy slid
    his cock in my ass like it was a bullet from his pistol.The bulbous
    cockhead massaged my colon walls on the way in. "Ah, yeah, boss," he
    breathed, sinking in me to his balls, "you're a fuckin' good ride!" He
    ground himself into me, driving that pole. My arms were jammed behind me,
    so I couldn't stroke myself, but his humping rubbed my prick back and
    forth on the leather footstool, most erotic of all surfaces. That drove me
    toward the supreme pleasure of a climax. I rode that footstool on a
    one-way trip to sexual glee.

    "Now," he panted, "I've got something special." I couldn't see what he was
    doing, but I felt him fumbling at my crotch, at the joining of our bodies.
    He yanked at the tight thong around my balls, bringing more groans from
    me. "Umph," he grunted, "now we're fuckin' together. That thong around
    your balls is attached to my balls!" Huh? He's strapped our balls
    together? One of us is going to get his balls torn off! I tried to
    struggle away, but I was helpless, strung up like a side of beef. When he
    started fucking again, he yanked my balls back with every out-stroke. I
    could hear him gasping, so I knew he was in pain, too. What a fuck! Pure
    pleasure with every ram of that huge cock into me, dizzying pain every
    time he pulled out! Again and again and again, we went through the
    pleasure-pain cycle. Even though I was in pain from the tight thongs he
    had bound over me, I drove my hips up to match his gouging dong. My senses
    reeled as fantastic vibrations blasted through me. Our ragged, panting
    breathing, feeling his dick nestled in my butt, and smelling the tobacco
    and sweat of his body was as thrilling as watching a glorious Western
    sunset. The stabbing pains of his fuck-strokes built a super-discharge in
    my guts. He caught me around the waist and urged me on. "Yeah, boss, yeah!
    Ram those hips back at me, fuck me back. Yeah!" I came first! I spurted
    all over his footstool. Then he came. He filled my ass so full of cum, I
    shit cream for two days. He untied me after he got his climax and rested
    for a bit. My wrists and ankles were sore, but the pain was almost like a
    sexual afterglow. I said, "Give me a pair of pants to wear back to the
    house. That was the horniest stripping and fuck I ever got...but I don't
    have anything to wear."

    "Yeah, boss, sure," he said. Then the apartment door opened, and the rest
    of my employees came trooping through it! Young had his cock out, working
    his upjutting shaft. Katz was pulling his pants open as he walked
    through the door, and Cliff had a look on his face that let me know I
    was in for it. This was a real setup. I was already dangerously horny, and
    in the mood for anything. I groped my own meat back to full hardness.
    Young dropped to his knees on the floor. Catching on, I dropped over the
    footstool again, and raised his pecker in my hand to suck it into my
    mouth! No sooner did I do that than Katz got the last of his clothes
    off, and as nude as the day he was born, he dropped onto me in Hemos's
    place! This time, though, I wasn't bound up, and my hands were free. I
    didn't need them to stimulate myself, though. This was going to be one
    hell of a stockbrokers' fuck session! Cliff stood there, watching us for
    a few minutes. The other guys made love to me like desperate fuckers,
    grinding me back and forth and up and down. I knew that when we reached
    it, this one would be a long, stupendous orgasm. Then Cliff rolled onto
    his back, slid under my hips, and with a whoop, I felt my cock slide into
    his hot, wet mouth! Yeah! Katz held my waist, helping me, rutting like
    a machine. I was so frenzied with lust, I could feel my hot froth moving
    to the surface too quickly.

    But I couldn't slow down! Young's cock was like a bottle of fine brandy-
    -I was drunk after a few sips. The footstool squeaked in a horny rhythm.
    Then I got a glimpse of what Hemos was doing. He, like the rest of us,
    was stark naked, and he had slung himself in a leathery harness. It sus-
    pended from the ceiling, and the black straps extended down his firm body
    to his legs. The harness splayed his legs out wide, reminding me of what
    he had done to me earlier. I got a full view of his wrinkled asshole! With
    a pull at a couple of straps, he lowered himself onto my back, and I
    realized that he had set himself up for a rim job by Katz! I had never
    seen the like this. He had a real sex-setup in here! Hanging in that horny
    harness, he was as open and helpless as a male could get. I also saw that
    leather thong around his balls. Katz grabbed that strap and pulled
    himself over by the balls! He groaned, but when he was within range, I
    heard Katz's tongue slurping at Hemos's asshole. My own crotch-eel
    swelled into an erection bigger than any I had ever had! I heard he
    writhing in the harness, Katz's cock rammed me into another physical
    state, and Cliff's mouth was like a furnace over my dong. I sucked Young
    with all my strength! I couldn't stand it! That did it for me. I clutched
    at Young, humped my hips back at Katz, and jabbed down at Young. I
    heard the schluck- schluck-schluck sounds of our strokes. All of us
    blasted off at more or less the same time. I personally came in a flood,
    filling Cliff's mouth with searing hot jizz. Young did the same. His
    jizz gushed down my throat, filled my mouth, and slopped over my chin,
    dripping onto the floor. I felt from the vibrations that Hemos was
    jacking off as Katz gave him a rim-job, and I felt burning splatters of
    cum hit my naked back. Then Katz let loose in me, shooting his wad
    until there wasn't a drop of fluid left in his balls. When we finally
    untangled ourselves, we had, as you can imagine, a new management/labor
    relationship. I had always thought that sex with the employees would make
    for a bad business situation. That hasn't turned out to be the case. Work
    goes on at the brokerage. Profits are up. The big difference is in what
    goes on in the back room during breaks.

  32. Don't you mean... by Nindalf · · Score: 1

    overqualified?

  33. Is sub-orbital flight worth the risk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"

    1. Re:Is sub-orbital flight worth the risk ? by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't matter whether you think the risks are worth it.

      It matters if the potential customers think the risk is worth it.

    2. Re:Is sub-orbital flight worth the risk ? by darrick · · Score: 1

      I personally think that the astronaut selection process is quite a crock o' faeces. It was OK for the 50s and 60s, when space travel was really new. It's time for the "common person" to get access to space.

      And, why, every time this subject comes up, does someone say something stupid like "Well, Challenger had a tourist on board, and IT BLEW UP!". WTF? Do you think that her presence made the thing self-destruct?! Grow a brain!

  34. A demonstration of O2 danger by drodver · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:A demonstration of O2 danger by teaserX · · Score: 1

      OH Sh*t! I'm ROFLMAO I love it when people have knowledge of and access to things that are kept from the rest of us for a reason :)))

      --
      We really need your help
      http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
    2. Re:A demonstration of O2 danger by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      The winner and effect of the 1996 Ig Nobel Prize in Chemistry is not exactly a secret...not that there has been consumer demand yet to ignite charcoal in 3 seconds, nor is there a consumer grill which is not severely damaged by the process.

    3. Re:A demonstration of O2 danger by mitheral · · Score: 1
      not exactly a secret...

      Yah, Wasn't this originally on a gopher site? I remember having to download the pictures to disk and display them on a PC because the VAX terminal I was using couldn't display pictures and none of the PCs had net access.

  35. YOU BIG BABY by Pinus+Tarballs · · Score: -1

    You know perfectly well how to get your own porn... Ohhhh, alright, just this once:

    EQUESTRIAN

    "Oh, I don't know," Angie replied into the phone, "I've got all this house work to do, and I have to pick the kids up after school and take them to soccer practice!" "Come on," Petra shot back, "you haven't been out of that house in over a week, and besides, we pay membership fees, so we might as well use them!" Angie thought it over for a second or two and then responded, Okay, I'll go, but only for and hour!!!" Afraid that her best friend might change her mind, Petra quickly said, "Good, I'll pick you up in twenty minutes," and then hung up! Angie shook her head while chuckling, and went off to finish up the breakfast dishes before Petra showed up!
    Petra skillfully wove through traffic on their way to Hidden Trails Ranch, where both she and Angie stabled their horses. "Great day to ride, huh," commented Petra?!? Angie rolled her eyes and replied, "It's okay now Pete, you don't hafta keep trying to sell me, I'm going with ya!" "Okay, okay," Petra responded, trying her best to sound a little hurt, "I was just making conversation!!!" Before Angie could answer her friend's little barb, Petra was pulling up to the main gate of the stable, and inserting her pass key into the automatic gate opener. Once inside and parked, the two women strolled over to the tack room, checked in, and had a stable boy start getting their horses ready. While they were waiting, they went into the locker room and changed into their riding clothes.

    Ten minutes later they were standing next to their horses, and waited until Jack, the stable hand, would give them a lift onto the saddle. Everything seemed normal enough, with women riding in and out of the barn, stable hands saddling and unsaddling horses, five gallon buckets of oats lined up against the wall for feeding, as well as a plethora of other equine related activities going on at the same time, but if you looked closer, however, several things seemed a out of the ordinary. Number one, there were no males riding the horses, only women. Number two, all positions of authority were held by women, with only the menial and physically demanding jobs filled by men. And last but not least, it was the saddles, you had to look at the saddles to figure out what was going on here! On each saddle was phallic like protrusion where the riders crotch would normally sit, the length of which varied from saddle to saddle! Angie lifted her leg as Jack hoisted her up, but instead of plopping down hard, Angie stood up in the stirrups while Jack reached up between her legs, found the opening in the crotch of her pants, stuck his fingers inside, fingered Angie's pussy for a second or two, just to get it lubricated, and then, while holding her lips open with his fingers, guided her down onto the six inch leather spike that sprung from the saddle seat! As Angie settled down, Jack asked, "Is that all right Miss Angie!?!" "Mmmmm, yes," Angie gasped, as her pussy formed tightly around the thick protrusion!!! Next it was Petra's turn, the only difference being, was that her saddle had and eight incher rather than a six! Each woman decided how long and thick she wanted her satisfier, some opting for huge, while others only wanted to be teased, so they went for a much smaller version!!! The two women turned their horses around and headed off towards one of the many trails that crisscrossed the property, while Jack yelled after them, "Have a nice ride, ladies!!!"

    The horses settled into an easy gait and both Angie and Petra rode in silence as the rocking motion of the saddle was transferred directly into the leather studs that were buried in their pussies!!! Both women began to breath shallowly as the steady back and forth movement drove them towards orgasm!!! In a way it was almost like Chinese water torture, tiny increments of motion, none of which alone would were even noticeable, but combined together, were as powerful as any pecker either woman had ever had!!! "Glad you came, Ang," Petra panted!?! "Uhh, yeah," Angie gasped, "I haven't cum in over a week!!!" "I'm close," Petra moaned, "are you?!?" "Oh, my," Angie gasped, "I'm so fucking close, I can hardly stand it, I'm going to make him gallop and drive it in harder!!!" "No, wait," begged Petra, "make it last, you know it's always better when you make it last!!!" "I-I can't," a now distressed Angie replied, "its rubbing on my clit so slowly I can't take it anymore," and with a crack of her riding crop on the flank of her horse, she tore off ahead of Petra!!! In less than six strides, Angie's vagina was be torn apart by an incredible orgasm, as she bounced up and down on the hard saddle cock!!! All it took to throw her over the edge, was harder and more direct contact against her erect clit, and the hard galloping horse provided that and a whole lot more!!! Petra, on the other hand, held her ground, however, and decided to let the torturously slow motion of the walking horse push her inexorably to her climax! The only noise to be heard was the quiet clip clop of the horses hooves on the hard trail, until all at once, Petra let out a low moan that grew into a loud groan!!! Her orgasm filled every inch of her body, causing her to double over in her saddle, and holding on for dear life!!!

    The two women hooked up again, and rode over to a special clearing, that was concealed from any passing traffic outside of the stable grounds. As they approached it, they could see that there were maybe ten other ladies on horseback, formed in a circle and just sitting quietly. Angie and Petra sidled up to the group and took their places in the circle while all around them, there were woman in various stages of sexual excitement, some of them, in fact, were having orgasms in front of everyone there!!! The thick saddle cocks had a lot to do with it, that's for sure, but what was turning them on so, was a show being put on in the middle of the horse ring!!! There on several blankets, were three young teenage boys, eighteen to nineteen years old, with huge cocks, masturbating slowly for the middle aged women sitting on their horses!!! "Jesus," whispered Petra, "the dark haired one has a horse cock of his own, how big do you think he is!?!" "At least ten inches," Angie said softly, while at the same time grinding her pussy onto her hard saddle cock!!!" Petra couldn't help but look around at all the other women who were intently watching the young men jerking their hard peckers. It was an amazing scene, women ranging in age from thirty five to sixty, were calmly masturbating in full view of everyone else, and acting as if nothing were out of the ordinary!!! All of the women tried to time there orgasm with the ejaculation of one of the boys, so when one of them finally spurted his seed all over his belly, about a third of the ladies convulsed with orgasms of their own!!! As the other two lads shot there loads, the other ladies too had there climaxes, and everyone left the clearing and headed back to the barn!

    As each lady alit from her steed, every saddle cock was drenched with the juices of its rider! Again, the women relied on Jack, the head stable hand, to gently daub their now sore pussies with a damp cloth, before sending them on their way back to the locker room!

    "God, that was good," Petra sighed, as she stepped under the hot needles streaming from her shower head! "Oh yeah," Angie replied, while luxuriating under the pulsating water jets! All around them women of various shapes and sizes were all showering up, with many of them taking turns soaping each other's backs and of course their genitals! It usually didn't take long before one of the women would slip to the floor and begin tonguing the vagina of another rider, and in this case, a thin small breasted woman was eating out the hairy pussy of a slightly chubby huge breasted blonde!!! When all at once the chubby lady moaned a hard orgasm, everyone in the shower gave her an ovation!!! Sheepishly she looked around the room and exclaimed, "I guess I really needed it today!!!" Everyone got a real chuckle out of that, since she probably had three or four climaxes while riding her horse!!! While the were dressing, Angie commented, "Hey, Pete, will ya look at that!!!" What Angie was referring to was a lactating woman who was nursing a younger woman like she was a baby!!! Petra just shook her head and replied, "Ya never know what you'll see at the Hidden Trail Ranch!!!

    THE END

    1. Re:YOU BIG BABY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellentey. I managed to reduce my lack of work induced boredom by 10 minutes.

  36. Aw... by ZaBu911 · · Score: 1

    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

    1. Re:Aw... by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 1

      ok, these damn emoticons are getting out of hand... I'm not sure what the hell is going on in that one.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Aw... by ZaBu911 · · Score: 1

      Z;(Bu is my signature when i'm sad
      Z;)Bu is my signature when i'm happy

      get it? got it? good.

  37. Suggestion... by Pinus+Tarballs · · Score: -1

    How about: GO SWALLOW DRANO YOU PUSTULENT AC COOZEWART!!!

    Please let me know if I spelled "pustulent" wrong. Thanks!

  38. They stole my damn design! by The+Panther! · · Score: 1

    Okay, not really. But I should have a gotten patent on that...

    --
    Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
  39. Uhh Meschersmidt? by SirStanley · · Score: 1

    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+++========--------
    1. Re:Uhh Meschersmidt? by jorbettis · · Score: 2

      "Rocket Jets"? No, they did have a rocket powered plane, I have a book with the specs on it, but I don't have it with me at the moment. From what I recall, it was not a very useful aircraft as the rocket could only burn for about 10 minutes (not sure on the exact number).

      I don't know about the 90% death rate, are you sure you're not confusing it with the Messerschmitt Bf 109? It was a traditional prop plane, but very high preformance and, thus, difficult to fly. The narrow wheel base and high landing speeds made it difficult to land, and the torque from the engine would sometimes cause pilots to lose control on takeoff. Also, the pilot could lose control in dives because the control surfaces were not big enough for the high speeds and the controls would become sluggish. The accident death rate was no where near 90%, but it was higher than other similar aircraft.

      The Messerschmitt 262 was the famous German jet during the war. Here's a link to a page about it.

      When people started looking to break the sound barrier, the British tried to do it with jets, but the Americans wisely decided that a supersonic jet would have too many complications, and decided to use a rocket powered aircraft to do it. The Bell X-1, flew by Chuck Yeager, was a rocket powered aircraft, but it landed as a glider, and appearently wasn't that difficult to land.

      --

      Jordan Bettis

      ``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''
    2. Re:Uhh Meschersmidt? by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 1

      The ME163. :) XCOR wants to make replica planes of the ME163 AND the Bell X-1, using our modern (and SAFE) rocket engines. The problems with the ME163 were numerous, all of which are solved with the modern technology. See www.xcor.com and click on the ME163 and X1 links on the left navbar.

      The ME163 page explains the original shortcomings and our proposed solutions. Primarily, the original plane used hypergolic propellants. Even a tiny amount combining accidentally in the open air would be incredibly volitile, usually causing a chain reaction and resulting in horrific explosions, killing ground crew and pilots. Most of the ME163 casualties happened on the ground during refueling. The planes were constantly being doused with water while fueling, to dillute any fuel elements which might splash out and cause an explosion.

      XCOR's engines on the other hand, are completely non-toxic and require external ignition to burn.
      We currently use LOX and and isopropyl alcohol.

      The other issue with the ME163 was the landing gear. rubber technology was not so advanced, and they used big heavy tires which were dropped after takeoff due to weight. The plane landed on it's belly, on a skid. Ours would have retractable landing gear.

      --Mike
      (XCOR webguy)

    3. Re:Uhh Meschersmidt? by Millyways · · Score: 1

      We have one of these German WWII rocket planes at the War Memorial (museum) in Canberra Australia. As well as a V2 rocket (much better looking German rocket vehical) It has got to take the honors as the funniest looking plane I have ever seen. Well actually the new Stealth planes are pretty funny looking too.

      I find it hard to believe that they where ever aerodynamically stable. There is no way you could have every gotten me to sit in one. And the same goes for any new replica.

    4. Re:Uhh Meschersmidt? by TheSync · · Score: 2

      The Me 162 was actually not the first rocket plane. From Black Powder Solid Propellants:

      "In early June 1927, rocket and space enthusiasts in Germany founded the Verein fuer Raumschiffahrt (Society for Space Travel). Some members experimented with black powder rockets.

      Automobile manufacturer Fritz von Opel piloted his own rocket glider, Opel Rak.1, in tests near Frankfurt on 30 September 1928. Its 16 rockets, each producing 50 pounds of thrust, were build by Friedrich Sander a pyrotechnics specialist. The propulsion system combining high-thrust, fast-burning powder rockets for initial acceleration with lower-thrust, slower-burning rockets to sustain velocity.

      Opel approached Alexander M. Lippisch, a young designer working at the Rhon-Rossitten-Gesellschaft, who had already displayed a penchant for the unorthodox in airplane configuration, with the proposal that he, too, design a glider for rocket power.

      Max Valier and Alexander Sander also succeeded in arousing enthusiasm for rocket propulsion in a twenty- seven-year-old aircraft designer, Gottlop Espenlaub. His E 15 tail-less design was of interest as a rocketplane.

      On 11 June, Fritz Stamer effected the first rocket- propelled flight in Lippish's glider. The glider had been dubbed Ente, or Duck. That lead later to the Lippish's Komet - the Messerschmitt Me 163, liquid rocket manned interceptor."

      Opel Rak.1 picture here

    5. Re:Uhh Meschersmidt? by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 1

      > I find it hard to believe that they where ever aerodynamically stable.
      > There is no way you could have every gotten me to sit in one. And the same goes for any new replica.


      I don't know the source of this quote from our page, but I've seen videos which describe similar reactions from German pilots:

      Pilots reported the Komet to be "Superb! No other word can express the pleasurable sensation as I shot ever upwards into the sky" and "one of the most maneuverable airplanes ever built."

      The tail-less design was incredibly revolutionary, and as it turns out, extremely versatile. I guess we'll just have to make one and find out for ourselves! :)

      --Mike
      (XCOR Webguy)

    6. Re:Uhh Meschersmidt? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > XCOR wants to make replica planes of the ME163 AND the Bell X-1, using our modern (and SAFE) rocket engines

      Dude. This would rock.

      Flying an ME163 must have been intense. Solving the engineering problems and creating replicas of these historic aircraft, even if it doesn't get anyone into space, gives every air show in North America one hell of a crowd-pleaser.

    7. Re:Uhh Meschersmidt? by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      As I recall, Rutan is not trying to build rocketplanes. He wants to build VTO rockets.

      The plane was just a way of testing the reliability of the rocket design on a real-world vehicle.

      It isn't THE vehicle, guys, it's a testbed.

      The final rocket will be something else entirely... and probably not built by Rutan. The company is looking to SELL the rocket engines, to companies who want to go to space. How they are used is not Burt's current concern.

    8. Re:Uhh Meschersmidt? by Mawbid · · Score: 2

      When I was a kid, I spent countless hours browsing through a big book of WWII planes. In the "funny looking" category, I certainly remember the Me-163, but I always found the Dornier Do-335 "Pfeil" even more fascinating.

      --
      Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
  40. Crash and burn? by Jarvo · · Score: 1

    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?

  41. life during wartime by motherhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:life during wartime by drodver · · Score: 1

      With enough computing power and high definition radar you could use a kinetic projectile. The launcher would cost more but it's a one time cost versus missles.

    2. Re:life during wartime by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      "Could a missile fired from sub orbit on an (relatively) inexpensive platform such as this one, actually knock out a satellite? "

      Yes.

      http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/asat .h tm

    3. Re:life during wartime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That kind of precision is impossible to attain (think atmosphere, for example).

  42. Get with it by createaccount13 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    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.

    1. Re:Get with it by redcliffe · · Score: 0

      ROFL!!! Redhat, "Slack Ware" and Storm Linux are previous versions? Something tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Something tells me you are just a stupid Microsoft employee. In fact something tells me you may be Bill Gates himself. You are dumb enough to be him!

      And what has this got to do with Rockets? And before you troll us about "wasting time" on Linux, why did you waste time to write all that? Or did you just copy it from someplace else?

    2. Re:Get with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until you learn the art of the paragraph i am not even going to try and read that giberish.

    3. Re:Get with it by TripleP · · Score: 1

      if(linux != rocket racing == true}{
      for(;;)
      print "Lay off the cheap crack, read the topic"
      }

    4. Re:Get with it by JimPooley · · Score: 1

      Yoo-hoo! Mr. Moderators!!!

      Does someone want to moderate this loon off-topic?

      No. I'm not part of the Linux Hive-mind, nor am I a Microsoft astroturfer. BUT this bollocks is 100% OFF THE TOPIC!

      How much more off topic could he be? None! None more off topic...

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    5. Re:Get with it by mummers · · Score: 1

      Thank you Mr.Gates for your insightful comment and near surgical accuracy in dissecting the topic of 'Private Rocketplanes'.

      --
      --This isn't a man who is leaving with his head between his legs.
  43. Rotary Rocket gone by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative
    Rotary Rocket is gone. Sad. They had a launch vehicle that was supposed to go suborbital, and probably would have worked. The helicopter-type landing system passed flight test. Another Rutan airframe design, by the way.

    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.

    1. Re:Rotary Rocket gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the engine work to date was successful (including, IIRC, flight weight thrust chamber static tests and centrifuge tests).

      They just couldn't raise the money to continue after the small sat business crashed (everyone bailed after Iridium).

  44. Kipling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Take up the White man's burden --
    Send forth the best ye breed --
    Go bind your sons to exile
    To serve your captives' need;
    To wait in heavy harness
    On fluttered folk and wild --
    Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
    Half devil and half child.

    Take up the White Man's burden --
    In patience to abide,
    To veil the threat of terror
    And check the show of pride;
    By open speech and simple,
    An hundred times mad plain.
    To seek another's profit,
    And work another's gain.

    Take up the White Man's burden --
    The savage wars of peace --
    Fill full the mouth of Famine
    And bid the sickness cease;
    And when your goal is nearest
    The end for others sought,
    Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
    Bring all your hope to nought.

    Take up the White Man's burden --
    No tawdry rule of kings,
    But toil of serf and sweeper --
    The tale of common things.
    The ports ye shall not enter,
    The roads ye shall not tread,
    Go make them with your living,
    And mark them with your dead!

    Take up the White man's burden --
    And reap his old reward:
    The blame of those ye better,
    The hate of those ye guard --
    The cry of hosts ye humour
    (Ah, slowly!) toward the light: --
    "Why brought ye us from bondage,
    "Our loved Egyptian night?"

    Take up the White Man's burden --
    Ye dare not stoop to less --
    Nor call too loud on freedom
    To cloak your weariness;
    By all ye cry or whisper,
    By all ye leave or do,
    The silent, sullen peoples
    Shall weigh your Gods and you.

    Take up the White Man's burden --
    Have done with childish days --
    The lightly proffered laurel,
    The easy, ungrudged praise.
    Comes now, to search your manhood
    Through all the thankless years,
    Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
    The judgment of your peers!

    1. Re:Kipling by Pinus+Tarballs · · Score: -1

      I don't know, you naughty boy, I've never kippled!

      Boiiinnnngggg!

  45. Back yard fun by forest_rock · · Score: 1

    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.

  46. JATO by sh4de · · Score: 0, Troll
    How long until someone straps one of these to a 1967 Chevy Impala and attemps a Jet Assisted Take Off? From snopes.com:
    The Chevy remained on the straight highway for approximately 2.6 miles (15-20 seconds) before the driver applied the brakes, completely melting them, blowing the tires, and leaving thick rubber marks on the road surface. The vehicle then became airborne for an additional 1.3 miles, impacted the cliff face at a height of 125 feet, and left a blackened crater 3 feet deep in the rock.
  47. It's been done.. by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nice try dick, but you're not the first

    1. Re:It's been done.. by mikeage · · Score: 2

      Jet Assisted Take-Off
      1995 Darwin Awards Winner
      Confirmed Bogus by Darwin

      ~Sigh~... it's an old urban legend... it's never been done. Read the web page you linked to ;)

      --
      -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
    2. Re:It's been done.. by ryanwright · · Score: 2

      ... it's never been done.

      Not according to this guy.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
  48. rocket racing?!? by qwerty123 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    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

    1. Re:rocket racing?!? by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      Ooooh! A whole 140hp in a vehicle that weighs more than a half-ton! Wow, I'm impressed. And don't forget folks, that 140hp is measured at the crankshaft!

      As opposed to my 1993 Yamaha FZR-1000, which weighs a bit over 400 pounds, and I have personally tested at 122hp at the rear wheel on a rear-wheel dynamometer. (Factory, no mods.) The current model sports 140 rear-wheel hp and weighs just over 300 pounds.

      I could run the 1/4 mile, stop and eat a sandwich before you crossed the line.

      Stupid toys like Civics shouldn't be allowed on the road.

    2. Re:rocket racing?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Stupid toys like Civics shouldn't be allowed on the road.

      As opposed to that toy motorized bicycle you ride?

    3. Re:rocket racing?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one very important detail: How much air does your 1993 Yamaha FZR-1000 take in to produce that thrust? I think the ratio is typically around 15:1, isn't it? Figure the weight of the fuel that you burned, multiply that by 15 add that to the mix, and don't forget the overhead of putting all that in a tank, nicely shaped so that you can actually move it through the air --and remember to figure in the altitude he climbs while doing this-- and then see if your training wheels can keep up...

  49. extra space in link by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

    oops, remove the space between the h & t before trying the link

  50. article text by FrenZon · · Score: 2, Informative
    it seems like the server's going down (or it could just be australia's crap old ADSL) So here's the body text, fear my karma-whoring or something.

    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.

  51. I'm a Karma Whore - Give me +5 interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..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.

  52. Idiot. by cgleba · · Score: 1


    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!

  53. FAA is going to just love this... by jswitte · · Score: 1

    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..

  54. Who did it? Was: Rotary Rocket gone by Jayson · · Score: 1

    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.

  55. WE MUST RETALIATE by FuckTheTaliban · · Score: -1

    In this time of national tragedy, many people are letting their anger get the best of them. If I've learned anything in my life, it's that when you're dealing with a crisis, the worst thing you can do is let your emotions run wild. To react rashly will only exacerbate the problem in the long run.

    Rather than be blinded by our collective anger, we must keep a cool head and, after careful consideration of the many complex social and geopolitical factors at work here, annihilate the pieces of shit who did this with measured, focused rage.

    While leveling Afghanistan, Iraq, the Sudan, and Libya with bombs might seem like a justifiable move, we must first ponder the consequences of such a hasty, hotheaded decision. Have we explored all other options? Have we made sure we have the support of other key powers in the region, so that further problems don't develop after we bomb them back into the Stone Age?

    Let's also keep in mind that we still don't know with absolute certainty who is responsible for the attacks. Believe me, no one wants to assume Osama bin Laden is behind these heinous acts more than I do. However, basing a military response on conjecture would only weaken our international position and undermine any retaliatory measures we take. What we need is rock-solid, convincing rumors before we can move forward with vaporizing the bastards.

    I agree that the perpetrators must be punished severely. But, contrary to what so many knee-jerk, blood-lusting Americans would like to believe, merely capturing and punishing them will not prevent this sort of thing from happening again in the future. No, they must be tried and convicted in a U.S. court of law, so that President Bush can, on live TV, pump bullet after bullet into their bodies, starting with their feet and slowly working his way up. Then, after a great deal of soul-searching and consultation with his top advisors, the president must toss their lifeless, bullet-riddled bodies into a shark tank.

    I must also respond to the many voices in this country who have been calling for the use of nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction are not to be used lightly. Much thought and caution must be exercised before making the country that gave safe haven to the perpetrators an unlivable radioactive wasteland. Vigorous debate and discussion must precede any inevitable decision regarding target locations and the number of weapons. This is one area where you absolutely don't want to make a mistake.

    We must remember that impulsively lashing out is never the best course of action. True justice can only be achieved through cool, calm, levelheaded armageddon.

  56. Extreme (rocket) Programming by warpeightbot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It looks like Buzz Aldrin's got some competition now.... Buzz had been going at it with the idea of adapting existing missile tech in clusters to form a cheap booster for commercial space.... but it looks to me like he was using the cathedral method of design. Big and slow.

    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.

    1. Re:Extreme (rocket) Programming by mikeage · · Score: 2

      At least it's not running windows... makes you wonder about those crashes, and blue (red?) screens of death...

      --
      -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
    2. Re:Extreme (rocket) Programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When programming people don't die when when my program crashes. I don't think so.

    3. Re:Extreme (rocket) Programming by Soggy_Cornflake · · Score: 1

      ...The original 2-seat pusher LongEZ became the 4-seat Velocity, the taildragger Quickie, and inspired the commercial LearStar and Beechcraft StarShip designs.
      Rutan was heading up Beechcraft when the Starship was designed. It was his pet project, but many of the engineers hated the project. They weren't inspired to build it, they were paid to work on it & and told to do it even though they objected to the design approach.
      The Starship was all composite and a Canard which was a major design departure from Beechcraft's bread and butter - the King Air series.
      The Starship ended up costing twice as much as a King Air with less performance which goes to prove that just because you can do something doesn't mean it makes business sense.

  57. Carmack's the Competition by deathcow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Carmack's the Competition by richxcor · · Score: 1

      John is also an investor in our company. His work is very complimentary to what we are doing

    2. Re:Carmack's the Competition by Grayraven · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's pretty neat. :-)

      I seem to recall that he said in an interview that
      he doesn't feel that computer graphics are as challenging anymore.

      The learning curve is real steep, but when you get to the top, well, it get _real_ tough. No one to rely on and so on. So he
      went to rocketry to get back the feeling of making discoveries and gaining insight.

      Maybe this will even affect his code. I know my code is affected by strange stuff I learn. :-)

      --
      "Source... The Final Frontier" -- keepersoflists.org
    3. Re:Carmack's the Competition by Winged+Cat · · Score: 1

      Hey, the dude's gotta do something with his money. Even his Ferraris would eventually get boring if they're all he ever tinkered with...

  58. Another dude in the mix by ruszka · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  59. Letter I -- On the Quakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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."

  60. Pay Per View Rocket Racing - YES INDEEDY by squaretorus · · Score: 1

    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!

  61. Big Fat Cocks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ...all round. I'll have mustard on mine.

  62. Start your own by manon · · Score: 1

    I'm going to start on building my own rocket... you know what they say, start small: with this. ;)

    --
    42 + 1 = 42
  63. Please, do not feed the trolls by Guppie · · Score: 1

    Kinda amusing, but there's no point in correcting the post, as it is an obviuos troll...

  64. Another "killer" application... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    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.

    Could also be used for demolishing buildings. Much faster than the old-fashioned wrecking-ball...

  65. URL for me262 replica project by mks113 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Looks like they are building five of them and plan to fly one this year. http://www.stormbirds.com/project/

  66. How safe could it really be??? by codec · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.

    1. Re:How safe could it really be??? by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1

      Please don't post if you don't know what you're talking about.

      The LongEZ has been around forever and is a very safe design. As I understand it, Denver's plane had the fuel selector switch mounted in a nonstandard position and he lost control while trying to access it (another argument for standardized UIs). Ultimately it was pilot error.

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    2. Re:How safe could it really be??? by McFly777 · · Score: 1

      Ummm.... actually John Denver was flying a (poorly) modified LongEZ. As in many things, if people don't follow the directions, things break.

      Burt Rutan has been sued many times for people crashing one of his designs. In every case it has been proved to have been due to a poorly applied modification to the original design.

      Kinda like I probably shouldn't hack the linux kernal if I am going to have to trust my life to it. I am admittedly not a very experienced programmer; just enough to make me dangerous.

      --

      McFly777
      - - -
      "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
    3. Re:How safe could it really be??? by richxcor · · Score: 1

      The Long-EZ was picked because it has a very good glide ratio. Without the prop, it apprantly glides even better. Dick is the original factory test pilot and he probably has more hours flying this airplane than anyone.

  67. Hmmm, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > If you post after this, you will die.
    That's a tautology right ?
    Everybody dies sometime.

  68. Rutan Brothers unlikely to Fail by BuildAPlane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  69. Open Source Aircraft by McFly777 · · Score: 1

    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
  70. Re:Open Source Aircraft (better link...sorry) by McFly777 · · Score: 1
    --

    McFly777
    - - -
    "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
  71. If metric is so wonderful then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...why can I only buy catsup by the gram. Why isn't the bottle size listed in newtons?

  72. Dick's Next Trip? by Ralph+Bearpark · · Score: 2
    In 1986 Dick Rutan flew his "Voyager" around the world, non-stop, in 9 days. In 1997 he flew his Long-EZ around the world, with many stops, in 80-or-so days. Now with his EZ-Rocket maybe could now fly round the world, with refuelling stops, in (what?) a day?

    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.

  73. Burt Rutan is a Mac fanatic by McFly777 · · Score: 1

    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
  74. N. Korea, Iraq lining up to buy... by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:N. Korea, Iraq lining up to buy... by mikefoley · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that all innovation should stop because some wacko in a 3rd world country with his towel in a knot could use it against us?

      With that logic, Boeing shouldn't have built the 767.

      --
      What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
    2. Re:N. Korea, Iraq lining up to buy... by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Cheaper to use a Piper Cub to deliver a warhead. Don't obsess about rockets; the 1950's are a long time ago.

      A rocket is expensive, shows up on intelligence radar, and has the bad habit of failing during flight. A small plane, a container vessel, a U-Haul, or a speedboat delivers the nuclear punch without the high-tech nonsense.

      Remember, while Bush was touting invincible missle shields, we had the worst one-day disaster in civilian or military casualties, ever.

      Done with box cutters.

      K.I.S.S. works for nukes too.

      You listening, Bush Inc.?

  75. Lotus Notes Server does run on Linux by iconnor · · Score: 1

    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.

  76. It's Good to See by telstar · · Score: 1

    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.

  77. Some Quibbles by cybercuzco · · Score: 2

    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.

    --

    1. Re:Some Quibbles by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      You cluster dozens of the rockets. Much better, because redundancy gives you a better chance of not-dying.

      Also, Rutan and co. are working on bigger engines. This was a testbed. And it worked! Good engineering and testing == success.

      Rutan is god.

    2. Re:Some Quibbles by Rocket+Shadow · · Score: 1

      Er, well, please read the press release. The EZ-Rocket is a TEST BED. The 400 lbf engines are DEMONSTRATORS. We will never fly the EZ-Rocket beynd Vne (about 200 mph). The fuel tank = about two minutes of thrust, enough to get to about 12k feet. The cockpit is not pressurized, so we won't take it above that altitude. It's just a demonstrator. But the company has learned a heck of a lot and we're keen to apply that knowledge to bigger and better things: we know what it takes to get to orbit; the EZ won't.

      And, BTW, XCOR is not Scaled Composites, and we are not Burt Rutan. Burt designed the Long-EZ. Dick, his BROTHER, flies it for us. Burt is a friend and a neighbor, but he has his own stuff he is working on.

  78. Wrong! by archibald+tuttle · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  79. The rocket guy by mks180 · · Score: 1

    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.

  80. Re:Some People Shouldn't Have Kids - "Dick" Chop by ajm · · Score: 1

    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.)

  81. A few other niceties... by MadCow42 · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:A few other niceties... by os2fan · · Score: 2
      From 1900 to 1963, the litre was 1000.028 cu cm.

      Gallon = cube side 6.522 inches. But I don't need to work in cubes by itself. I fl oz = cube side 0.1 feet.

      Kilogram: the mass of one litre of pure water. How much does a gallon of water weigh???

      One gallon is 10 lb water.

      How many Imperial Tons does your swimming pool weigh?

      An imperial ton is very nearly 36 cu ft: ie 1 fathom * 1 fathom * 1 foot. If you insist on a cube, try 3.3 ft or 39.6 in, or 5 links, they're all the same.

      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.

      You must have went to sleep during the arithmetic lessons.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
  82. Rocket Science is Already Open Source by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Rocket Science is Already Open Source by re-geeked · · Score: 2

      Yet another reason to prefer the term Free Software :-)

      Seriously, though, I think the innovation of free software is that it takes what had been hoarded as property (finished, marketable products) and makes it as free as basic research.

      Of course, maybe that's because, in software, one can apparently take something with the quality of bad undergraduate research and sell it...

      --
      "You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
    2. Re:Rocket Science is Already Open Source by Tassach · · Score: 2
      Very insightful comment. As you point out, modern science is based on the free exchange of ideas. This shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone with a technical education.


      However, there is one major difference between the general scientific community and the Open Source movement: scientists share abstract ideas, whereas OSS shares a useful, consumable product. An openly published physics paper is really only useful to other physicists. An openly published computer program is useful to anyone with a computer -- you don't have to be able to understand the source code in order to execute the program.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    3. Re:Rocket Science is Already Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 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.

      It sure as heck *should* have got you modded
      down. It's ignorant.

      If you read Stallman's writings about how he
      started Free Software, he talks about how
      he's just trying to keep alive the tradition
      of the computer science community. Heck, it
      was even the tradition of the computer business
      world. In the 1960's, IBM encouraged customers
      to hack their OS.

  83. Mod this up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sick of everyone calling for new exotic propulsion systems when rockets work just fine!

  84. SI and its base units. by os2fan · · Score: 2
    SI (Systeme Internationale)

    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

    ..it also makes things much easier to understand in your head..

    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.
    1. Re:SI and its base units. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man are you dumb!

      three base units:
      yard pound gallon?

      i think you take the piss...
      Get a bit of engineering education before bullshitting like this,

      how on earth can it make sense to you to have a unit yard, and then to have a separate unit gallon? How can you compare this to the 7 units used by the previous poster which included current, charge, temperature, time...)

      your point about litre and cubic metre misses the real point. the Litre is defined based on the metre, which is in turn defined as a multiple of the wavelengths of the light from (i forget the details, some excited pure element like a noble gas)

      the litre is defined purely from the metre, and is a handy unit for many day to day uses (milk,soft drinks, gasoline). But it is trivially related to the cubic metre (1000 litres=1cubic metre). In any case, a cubic metre is not hard to puzzle out (think of a crate, 1metrex1mx1m, not exactly rocket science)

    2. Re:SI and its base units. by naasking · · Score: 1

      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

      WTF are you talking about? Care to explain this? Obviously not 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.

      Of course, had you any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that microlux is not an SI unit. The candela (cd) is the unit of luminous intensity.

      Also, an acrefoot is an easier volume to grasp than a Megalitre, although they're the same size.

      An acrefoot? lol. Ya, that's real intuitive for people who have heard of neither acres, nor feet. Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp.

      People convert sheets of paper into stacks miles high because thousands and millions can not be grasped.

      Perhaps for simple minds. You telling me you can't grasp 1 million dollars?

      They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7.

      No, you see it's called good design. You put something in if it makes sense that it should be there, because it is, in fact, a distinct entity.

      The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole.

      Source please? Or were you just talking out of your ass (again) ?

      The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies.

      The Ampere does not depend on meters and kilograms. In fact, it depends on no other units, hence the reason it is a base unit. Perhaps you might care to explain why you believe this? Furthermore, Henry per meter is not free of dependency on meter or kilograms. The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.

      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.

      Once again, you seem to confuse base unit with derived units. The candela is base, and therefore independent of all other units. The lux is derived and is defined as: cd/m^2.

      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.

      I'm sorry, care to clarify your incredibly vague point? The flux of coulombs? Also, perhaps you should keep in mind that an entity and it's flux are distinct and so should be different. I think you are confused.

      The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science.

      And you would know this... how exactly?

      Why measure volumes in litres. Doesn't the cubic metre cope with this??? No.

      Yes actually. Volume is not measured in liters, but in cubic meters.

      And from this, we can see immediately how "Weber" is derived from "Metre", "kilogram", "second", and "ampere". Get real.

      He said sticking to the letter, ie. using m^2kg/(s^2A^1) instead of Weber. Perhaps you should try reading next time. You know: left to right, top to bottom, group words into sentences, take tylenol for any headaches.

      Furtermore, you fail to demonstrate a superior and more consistent system. Are we just supposed to believe your word that SI sucks and that anything else is better? Considering that you've made a fool of yourself in this post by trying to criticize something of which you apparently know very little, you now have zero credibility. So why should anyone listen to you? In the unlikely case you'd like to abolish your ignorance, try this page which outlines SI quite well.

      Have a nice day!

    3. Re:SI and its base units. by os2fan · · Score: 2
      I do have a degree in Applied Physics.

      The number of base units is not a fixed constant, but an arbitary statement of unit derivation. In the imperial system, time, temperature, moles, light and angle are all supplemental scales, not units to be defined externally.

      So where the CGS mole is derived from the gram and the the fps, the lb-mole derives from the pound, the SI mole does not coherently derive from the kg, so they had to invent a new base unit for it, and deal with it separately.

      Leo Young had six base units where the cgs has three and the SI has four.

      The metre is currenlty defined as 1/299792458 light seconds. From 1900 to 1963, the litre was defined as the volume of a kilogram of air-free water, at STP, and was 1000.027 cu cm water. The Litre is not "a handy unit": reproducing volumes by bulk comparison (ie pouring or weighing) is more accurate than from its linear measures. Dry capacities (grain, fruit and so on), dropped out once scales became cheap enough to enter the market place, around the 1870's or so.

      I have a whole range of physics where the volume of a cube is six times the cube of the side. You just don't know that there is more than one "multiply" hanging around [hint: think of dot vs cross products]. The definition of the square and cubic metre are in fact, semi-base units. This is because the multiplication is not unique.

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    4. Re:SI and its base units. by os2fan · · Score: 2
      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 WTF are you talking about? Care to explain this? Obviously not 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. Of course, had you any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that microlux is not an SI unit. The candela (cd) is the unit of luminous intensity.

      The intensity of light in this item was originally measured in foot-candles, the intensity at one foot from one candle. Now, the metre-candle is called a lux, and a microlux is either a kilometre-candle, or metre-microcandle, both of which is 0.000001 lux, or one microlux.

      An acrefoot? lol. Ya, that's real intuitive for people who have heard of neither acres, nor feet.

      Nor are litres and metres, for people who never seen them. Most people have difficulty grappling with visualising large numbers, anyway. When I tried to visualise the scale of the WTC, I chose to multiply a skyscraper by five, rather than the house I live in by 55.

      Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp. It's actually in one of the supplementry tables.

      Perhaps for simple minds. You telling me you can't grasp 1 million dollars?

      A million here is a quantity, not a number.

      They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7. No, you see it's called good design. You put something in if it makes sense that it should be there, because it is, in fact, a distinct entity. The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole. The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something. Reason, because chemists regard the mole as a derived unit. SI upsets the mass-mole relation, so they had to make it a base unit.

      The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies.

      Read the definition of the ampere, and do the maths of actual dependancies, before you objec to this.

      The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.

      Whence A^2 = kg.m/s^2.[H/m]

      The lux is derived and is defined as: cd/m^2.

      Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition.

      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.

      The flux of an souece can be measured in different ways. In CGS electrics, with light, and so forth, unit flux intensity is had at unit distance from unit source. The total flux over a sphere is then 4pi of that source. Rationalisation makes the total flux the same as the source, and so factors of 4pi creep in.

      The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science. This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.

      Yes actually. Volume is not measured in liters, but in cubic meters. Capacities are'nt though.

      Considering that you've made a fool of yourself in this post by trying to criticize something of which you apparently know very little, you now have zero credibility.

      Oh well, none of your comments stuck. Maybe you should take the foot out of your mouth, and use it to head off to the library and do some research, first.

      Have a nice day!

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    5. Re:SI and its base units. by naasking · · Score: 1
      The intensity of light in this item was originally measured in foot-candles, the intensity at one foot from one candle. Now, the metre-candle is called a lux, and a microlux is either a kilometre-candle, or metre-microcandle, both of which is 0.000001 lux, or one microlux.


      You seem to be confused again: intensity is not the same as intensity over an area. Candela is intensity, lux is intensity per unit area.

      Nor are litres and metres, for people who never seen them. Most people have difficulty grappling with visualising large numbers, anyway.

      I'm sorry, perhaps I have to repeat myself: the liter is not an SI unit. Understand? And measuring volume using meters cubed is quite intuitive since it uses only one unit of distance/length and the definition of volume = l x w x h. That's clean and clear. Acrefeet use two combined units of measurement to convey the same amount of information; that seems quite useless and unnecessary.

      When I tried to visualise the scale of the WTC, I chose to multiply a skyscraper by five, rather than the house I live in by 55.

      By all means do. That doesn't mean everybody has trouble visualizing such things. I have certainlyhave no problem constructing a skyscraper out of 55 houses. And for your information, you can do scaling like that in metric as well, I don't see why imperial systems are superior in this respect.

      >Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp.

      It's actually in one of the supplementry tables.


      No, actually it's not, and if you'd bothered to read the site I linked to, you'd have known that. In fact, if you check out the page under the heading "Units outside the SI", you'd find *gasp!*, liters.

      A million here is a quantity, not a number.

      What's the difference? A quantity is a number of some denomination. Here's a definition of 'number': a concept of quantity derived from zero and units. Here's a def'n of 'quantity': That which can be increased, diminished, or measured; especially (Math.), anything to which mathematical processes are applicable. What can mathematical processesbe applied to? Numbers. What are quantities? Numbers. What are Numbers? Quantities. Clear?

      The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something. Reason, because chemists regard the mole as a derived unit. SI upsets the mass-mole relation, so they had to make it a base unit.

      Once again, sources? You make grand claims without providing any references for your info. Am I just supposed to believe you? All my claims in my previous post were referenced and backed by a government-run science-oriented website (which you didn't even bother to check to see the truth).

      Read the definition of the ampere, and do the maths of actual dependancies, before you objec to this.

      I know very well the def'n of the Ampere; I'm an electrical engineer, I use it every day. The Ampere is a Coulomb of charge passing a point per second. We can just as easily just say that the Amp is the base unit and therefore the Coulomb is an Ampere second. You don't seem to understand that dependencies are entirely relative, and that's the beauty of mathematics. Math doesn't care what you choose as your base reference. As long as your relationships are the same, your expression is the same. Consequently, SI sets Ampere as a base of reference, and defines other units based on it. The Ampere therefore has no dependencies, by definition.

      >The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.

      Whence A^2 = kg.m/s^2.[H/m]


      You're kidding right? Is this what you mean:

      H = m^2kg/(s^2A^2)

      H/m = m^2kg/(s^2A^2m) = mkg/(s^2A^2)
      A^2 = mkg/(s^2(H/m)) = m^2kg/(s^2H)

      If it is, I fail to see your point. You just rearranged the relationship between Henrys and Amperes. This is mathematically correct and applies to all systems of measurement since they have similar relationships. This does not imply that Amperes are somehow dependent on meters, kg or anything else. Henrys are dependent on m, kg, s and A, so if you re-substitute for H, you get A again. Once again, you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the meaning of base and derived and convey to me that you have a very shaky understanding of mathematics:

      1. y = x + 1 (look! y is a function of x!)
      2. x = y - 1 (gasp! now x is a function of y!)

      If you define x as the independent variable and just rearrange the equation as in 2., does that mean that all of a sudden y is now the independent variable? No it doesn't. x and y are dependent on each other according to the relationship given in 1., and if you define x as independent, then it shall remain so until you change the def'n. This is the identical situation with Amperes and Henrys, where A is def'd as the indep. var.

      Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition.

      lol. You're too funny. The lux is not an SI unit, and nowhere did I say it was. I said it was a derived unit and has the following relationship: cd/m^2. Furthermore, if you had actually read the SI site I pointed to, you'd see that candela is the base definition, and lumen is def'd as luminous flux (not intensity) which incidentally is derived to equal candela. You really should look into that reading thing I mentioned. It's quite helpful.

      The flux of an souece can be measured in different ways. In CGS electrics, with light, and so forth, unit flux intensity is had at unit distance from unit source. The total flux over a sphere is then 4pi of that source. Rationalisation makes the total flux the same as the source, and so factors of 4pi creep in.

      Well obviously you're dealing with a completely different situation then. You're dealing with flux over a unit area in the latter case versus flux over unit distance in the former, so C does not magically equal 12.566C. I don't see what the problem is here. What is your point?

      This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.

      You wanna bet how much of a pain it is? Remember the Mars craft which was fed incorrect values due to unit conversion? That's the kind of problems you end up having. If everyone has to convert units because everyone else is using a different system, you have greater oppoprtunity for error. Why take the chance? Why not just standardize a good unit system, and move on to more important matters than unit conversion? They did. It's called SI.

      Capacities are'nt though.

      Why not? They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement.

      Oh well, none of your comments stuck.

      I think they held up pretty well actually. Especially considering your counter-points didn't actually counter or prove anything.

      Maybe you should take the foot out of your mouth, and use it to head off to the library and do some research, first.

      Sorry, but bragging doesn't work for people who are wrong. You should really try thinking and doing some of that research yourself. Perhaps you can start by reading that website I linked to. I'll make it easy for you: it's here.

      Have a nice day!

      No, no, no! YOU have a nice day.

    6. Re:SI and its base units. by os2fan · · Score: 2
      You seem to be confused again: intensity is not the same as intensity over an area. Candela is intensity, lux is intensity per unit area.

      A good units dictionary should tell you that the lux is the new name for the metre-candle. It follows any unit Length-Source is the intensity of flux from a source at distance Lenght from it. From the example I used, it was intended to be an intensity some distance from a source.

      I'm sorry, perhaps I have to repeat myself: the liter is not an SI unit. Understand?

      Any unit intended to be used as part of a system is part of the system. Anything over that is unbridled pedentry.

      Acrefeet use two combined units of measurement to convey the same amount of information; that seems quite useless and unnecessary. So is Coulomb-metres, Ampere-hours, metres per second. It's called "multiplication".

      A million here is a quantity, not a number.
      What's the difference?
      Quanties are measured, and change when the units do. Numbers are counted, and do not change. So a "million dollars" is entirely different animal to "one million one-dollar coins". Most people who have a million dollars do not have it all in one-dollar peices.

      The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something.

      The mole appears as a derived unit in the International Critical Table of 1922, as a long established unit. It did not become a base unit until 1973. Reference for this is a number of unit dictionaries.

      All my claims in my previous post were referenced and backed by a government-run science-oriented website.

      The sort of site that you refer to reflect current prefered usage, not historical development. You obviously chose to ignore the definition of "ampere" there.

      I know very well the def'n of the Ampere; I'm an electrical engineer, I use it every day. The Ampere is a Coulomb of charge passing a point per second.

      It's actually defined in terms of Ampere's law, applied to two infinite conductors placed one metre apart. One ampere flowing through each of these conductors will exert a force of 2e-7 Newtons per metre of conductor. The definition has three variables, R=distance apart, L= section of conductor, and F=force. The maths cancels out R and L, so you can replace "metre" with "foot", "centimetre" or "mile" without upsetting the definition, but the ampere depends on sqrt(Newton). When you subst "(kg.m/s^2)^1/2" for "A" in the definitions, you will see that the "H/m" becomes "1", ie is independant of the size of the metre, kilogram and second.

      Once again, you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the meaning of base and derived and convey to me that you have a very shaky understanding of mathematics:
      1. y = x + 1 (look! y is a function of x!)
      2. x = y - 1 (gasp! now x is a function of y!)

      This is because I bothered to check the "definitions", and worked out what is truely independent. The choice of H/m was not accidental: it's the unit of the magnetic permeability, which is, when you read the definition of the ampere, the thing actually being defined.

      Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition. lol. You're too funny. The lux is not an SI unit, and nowhere did I say it was. I said it was a derived unit and has the following relationship: cd/m^2.

      We both made errors here. Let's call this one quits, and note that the lux is an SI derived unit = cd sr/m^2. The latest definition of the candela goes through the lumen, and depends on the size of the Watt.

      Well obviously you're dealing with a completely different situation then. You're dealing with flux over a unit area in the latter case versus flux over unit distance in the former, so C does not magically equal 12.566C. I don't see what the problem is here. What is your point?

      He's an electrical engineer, and has never heard of "rationalisation", where the factor 4pi magically shifted around equations. In the cgs system, total flux from a point charge is flux = 4pi charge. In SI, it is flux = charge. So a coulomb of charge gives 4 pi C under a non-rationalised system, and 1 C flux under a rationalised system. Hence 4 pi C (unrationalised) = 1 C rationalised. Same units, same dimension, different numbers.

      This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.
      You wanna bet how much of a pain it is? Remember the Mars craft which was fed incorrect values due to unit conversion?

      You should read the footnote where Maxwell comes to the conclusion that light is an vibration in the electromagnetic ether. It's got a hideous number of units, and some mis-conversions in that as well. He confuses the sea mile (6000 ft) and the nautical mile (6080 ft).

      Capacities are'nt though. Why not?

      They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement. Except that bulk comparisons are more accurate in commercial applications then linear measures. Hence the different names.

      Sorry, but bragging doesn't work for people who are wrong. You should really try thinking and doing some of that research yourself. Perhaps you can start by reading that website I linked to. I'll make it easy for you: it's here [nist.gov].

      Sorry, I am not wrong. A technical education does not make you a historian in weights and measures. It means that you know how to put wires into things. Understanding the history and basis of weights and measures is a different field.

      Have a nice day!

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    7. Re:SI and its base units. by naasking · · Score: 1

      Any unit intended to be used as part of a system is part of the system.

      Well, now you're getting philosophical, and since we seem to have our hands full enough with factual details, please stay away from philosophical statements. I didn't see any references on the site on the subject of "Spirit of the SI" which mentions liters and philosophical uses of the system. In the section entitled "Rules" which outlines use, the liter is not mentioned. So apart from philosophical statements and statements of how people use SI with liters (and hence, are not strictly using SI), then liters are not part of SI.

      Quanties are measured, and change when the units do. Numbers are counted, and do not change. So a "million dollars" is entirely different animal to "one million one-dollar coins". Most people who have a million dollars do not have it all in one-dollar peices.

      I agree, most don't have 1 million one dollar coins, but 1 million 1 dollar coins is 1 million dollars. So I disagree that they are entirely different animals. 1 million dollars is still a quantity, ie. it has a magnitude (in terms of a number) and a unit (dollar). Just because it is more a abstract and general quantity than something like 1 million 1 dollars bills, doesn't make it less of a quantity.

      The sort of site that you refer to reflect current prefered usage, not historical development.

      For the most part, only current usage is relevant to this discussion. To use your expression, "anything over that is unbridled pedantry". I never argued any history with you, but argued statements you made about SI. Therefore discussing SI as it currently stands is the issue on the table.

      You obviously chose to ignore the definition of "ampere" there.

      No, I simply hadn't come across it. Now that I have, it changes nothing.

      When you subst "(kg.m/s^2)^1/2" for "A" in the definitions, you will see that the "H/m" becomes "1", ie is independant of the size of the metre, kilogram and second.

      You forgot the H and a few other little things. The correct substitution is "(kg.m^2/s^2.H)^1/2" for "A", and no, I'm not just being anal because this is very important.

      All you're describing is a dependent mathematical relationship. The H cancels with H, the m's and kg's cancel with their parallels in the mag. perm. and so of course you're left with 1 for H/m.

      This is because I bothered to check the "definitions", and worked out what is truely independent. The choice of H/m was not accidental: it's the unit of the magnetic permeability, which is, when you read the definition of the ampere, the thing actually being defined.

      Look, when you're dealing with a mathematical system where multiple variables are dependent on one another, it doesn't matter what you choose as your base of reference as long as you preserve the relationships. So your above example where H/m becomes 1 just means that in the relationship for A, somewhere you're dividing by quantities which cancel with the mag. perm. It's not that somehow H/m is "baser" than A or more independent than A. All the variables are mutually dependent on one another. There is no such thing as an inherently independent or dependent variable in mathematical relationships. A variable is independent only if you define it to be so. Consequently, you cannot have worked out what was "truly independent" because there is no such thing. Short of some mathematical proof you provide, that is the way mathematics works.

      So the only thing "actually being defined" is the relationship between A, H, the mag. perm., etc. Now SI chooses to isolate A and use it as a base of reference in measurements. You can use anything else from that same relationship as a base if you like, but SI chose A and that's fine. If you read the Background->"History of SI" on that site, you'll see alot of references to their choosing "a mutually coherent set of units" which is what I'm explaining now. The units adhere to a set of relationships and the set of base units can be arbitrarily chosen as long as they maintain the relationships (coherence) and the derivable units cover the entire set of necessary measurements.

      In the cgs system, total flux from a point charge is flux = 4pi charge. In SI, it is flux = charge. So a coulomb of charge gives 4 pi C under a non-rationalised system, and 1 C flux under a rationalised system. Hence 4 pi C (unrationalised) = 1 C rationalised. Same units, same dimension, different numbers.

      Yes, but once again, what's your point? Now you're working in different systems with different standards, so obviously your numbers will be different. You tried to use this example to damn SI, yet I don't see how this is anything but a simple factual statement.

      You should read the footnote where Maxwell comes to the conclusion that light is an vibration in the electromagnetic ether. It's got a hideous number of units, and some mis-conversions in that as well. He confuses the sea mile (6000 ft) and the nautical mile (6080 ft).

      That seems strong evidence in favour of a unified unit system.

      They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement. Except that bulk comparisons are more accurate in commercial applications then linear measures. Hence the different names.

      I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see why one would be more accurate than the other. Any measure of capacity with one unit can be easily converted to a measure of volume in another with perfect precision.

      Sorry, I am not wrong. A technical education does not make you a historian in weights and measures. It means that you know how to put wires into things. Understanding the history and basis of weights and measures is a different field.

      You're right, it doesn't make me a historian, and I never claimed to be. Fortunately, we are not discussing history but mathematics and logic where I do have alot of experience. I hope you noticed that I have never made any statements based on any history or interpretation thereof; it's not a subject I know, and it's mostly irrelevant to this discussion. You damned SI for various reasons, and I am arguing those reasons since they appear illogical. I brought up and discussed no history other than what you brought to the table, and even then I didn't argue them because I didn't see them as relevant to the point (I still don't).

      So your point is irrelevant.

      Have a nice day. :-)

    8. Re:SI and its base units. by os2fan · · Score: 2
      Any unit intended to be used as part of a system is part of the system.

      It's nice that you argue that the Imperial system is a coherent single system, despite the different capacitity systems between the US and UK, and when the Russians used the foot, they did not use the pound. On the other hand, the metric system called SI, which is used with Litres, is somehow a hodgepodge of different systems.

      Quanties are measured, and change when the units do. Numbers are counted, and do not change.

      Things that are measured take singular: money is coming in from ..., where counted things take plural: cattle are coming in from ...

      I never argued any history with you, but argued statements you made about SI. Therefore discussing SI as it currently stands is the issue on the table.

      But that did not stop you from demanding the source for the recent status of the mole. Historical prospective makes metrology easier to understand.

      Notes on the definition of "ampere".

      Unlike the other definitions, the ampere is defined to set the permeability of free space to a fixed value. Specifically, it can be written so that it is 1e-7 H/m.

      The practical electrical units were defined to be a decade multiples of the theoretical EMU, for "practical applications". Any system that has an energy unit of a Joule, and a time unit of a second, can absorb them. In SI terms, this means a length of k metres, and a mass of 1/k^2 kg, the resultant permeability constant is (1e7)/k Henry/Length.

      Maxwell puts k=1e7, which makes L=Quadrant [of the earth, = 10,000 km (hence the old name of the Henry), and M = 1e-14 kg.

      . The system derived is coherent with the EMU equations.

      In order to have k != 1e-7, you have to rewrite the EMU and divide quanities (eg B from H). You could define k or L. Gustav Mie defined L=1 cm, and hence k=0.01, M=10 tonnes. Giorgi puts L=1 metre, so k=1. This is the basis of the MKSA, and hence the SI.

      If you chance to visit your NIST site, download sp330.pdf, and look at the adobe page 67 of that. You will see they talk of a new value for the von Klitzing constant of 25812.807 Ohms. This is 137.036*2pi*29.9792458 Ohms. 29.979&c is the speed of light. The reason that this can not be made the new definition of the Ohm is because it would upset the intended definition of the ampere, as seen on adobe page 68 of that pdf.

      Therefore, we are entitled to regard the ampere defined to preserve the permeability of space, and that the H/m as the most important fixed value.

      base units, definitions and dimensional analysis.

      A definition, can only be true for a specific case. You can not define an equation. There is nothing inherent in the definition of any of the base units, or even in the derived units, that imply the relationships involved.

      Units can not be intrinictly coherent. They are coherent to a body of equations. CGS units are coherent, as are SI units. But they are not coherent to the other's equations. And, as a result, the dimensions are not strictly equatable; hence the "equates to" in the conversions.

      One has a series of relationships that define things. For example, Force=mass*acceleration, or F=ma. This gives a definition that defines a unit force in terms of unit mass and unit acceleration, under specific conditions. [A definition can not infer a relation, but must infer the things it depends on].

      There are units that depend on force, eg power, energy and pressure.

      Gravity is easy to use: mass can be converted to force fairly easily. The term "weight" translates variously to a mass "net weight" or statistics, or a force as in mechanics. This leads to mass being used as a force unit or mass force indifferently: eg pounds per sq in.

      In the case of the fps system, one can derive an absolute system based on the f=ma relation. Kelvin makes the pound mass, and the f=poundals. Perry makes f=pound, and derives a mass="slug". The practical system is a mix of Perry and Kelvin systems, as gaussian = mixed ESU, EMU.

      One can diffirentiate the (mass,force), like Stroud (pound, Pound), or the german style (gram, pond), the US style (M-mass, M-force) or the new style (M, M-force). cf Kennelly's ab-, stat-

      One can make all systems coherent by rejecting F=ma as a derived equation, and defining F as a base unit. So you would have ft-lb-pdl-s or f-slug-lbf-s or ft lb-lbf-s, which is how the fourth, electical quantity appeared (as ESU and EMU are cm-g-s-Fr and cm-g-s-Bi).

      Alternately, one can divide the force into "force = f=ma" and "g-force=mg". This is how D gets split from E.

      Dimensions arrise from a putting the base units as variables, eg L M T F, or L-M-T-g. The number of dimensions is quite arbitary. It's an open algebra. This means, that I can take your dimensions and use it as if I derived it. But if I want to use it in a dead-end calcualtion, I can substitute L, M, T as 0.3048, 0.4536 and 1, to convert fps to MKS, or even put L, M, T as L^1, L^3, T if this needs to be done. It's an algebra, and I can substitute the values.

      Young had an algeba that allowed exact conversions between SI and CGS. He had six base units, adding S and U to the LMTI set. U basically corresponds to a turn in "ampere-turn". The HLU and Gaussian has a curl here, ie a Bi = Fr/s - curl. 1 curl= 29979245800 turns. S is the space factor: 1 Coulomb produces 1 C-sur of flux, or 4pi C-sun of flux.

      He has a body of equations, and six free variables, or six base units. You can fold the equations to get the SI or CGS equations by substituting for S and U beforehand, or leave the equations unfolded and add two extra base units to SI and CGS.

      So how many base units for electricity? four or six?

      There is no reason that in future some compelling reason will evolve for us to associate the candela with the watt. I mean, they used to measure resistances in miles (of copper wire).

      Capacity

      I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see why one would be more accurate than the other.

      You are looking at the number, not the practical implication of measurement. Have you ever tried to construct a cube of a specific volume. It's easy to do a cylinder, since these can be turned on a lathe, which is why you see lots of cylinder measures. But a cube?

      Technical vs Scientific measurement

      The thing that the technical people brought into SI is that every unit should have a name. In science, one can say "in cgs units, and give just the number.

      The thing that the scientific people brought into SI is coherence, the idea that one can say: the SI unit of X is Y. In some fields of science, they simply say "in xyz units" and drop the units completely. That's why the CGS units did not have names until Kennelly gave then ab- and stat- names in 1904.

      History is important, because it decides the evolving patterns, the candela may be the current "pound-force".

      Have a nice day. :-)

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    9. Re:SI and its base units. by naasking · · Score: 1

      It's nice that you argue that the Imperial system is a coherent single system,

      I never said that imperial wasn't coherent (nor did I say it was). I would argue that all unit systems are coherent, otherwise they'd be pretty useless. I did say (or tried to say) that SI is more consistent and clear in it's structure and choice of units, magnitudes and def'ns.

      On the other hand, the metric system called SI, which is used with Litres, is somehow a hodgepodge of different systems.

      You are the one who originally said SI is a hodgepodge, but now you're saying that it's not? Is this now what you meant? It is essentially what this sentence is saying.

      Things that are measured take singular: money is coming in from ..., where counted things take plural: cattle are coming in from ...

      Very well, so what is this in response to? I don't see how this has much to do with what I said...

      But that did not stop you from demanding the source for the recent status of the mole.

      Of course I did. As I've said many times before, am I just supposed to believe any statement you make? Before (and while) I engage in discussions, I demand that my opponent make reasoned, informed and therefore referenced arguments, otherwise what's the point? Without evidence you might as well say the sky is red and gravity repels. And if I can learn something in the process by reading a good reference, then all the better.

      Historical prospective makes metrology easier to understand.

      Perhaps it does. But historical perspectives are not what our discussion is supposed to be about.

      Notes on the definition of "ampere".

      Are these your own definitions and arguments, or taken from the documents you referenced?

      Unlike the other definitions, the ampere is defined to set the permeability of free space to a fixed value. Specifically, it can be written so that it is 1e-7 H/m [...] Therefore, we are entitled to regard the ampere defined to preserve the permeability of space, and that the H/m as the most important fixed value.

      You start off good, but then you go bad. It seems you're just shooting off a bunch of facts without any attempt to construct a logical argument. Your conclusion does not follow from any of your statements. Perhaps all this is explained in the document you referenced, but since I don't have time to look through it now, it will have to wait for another day.

      A definition, can only be true for a specific case.

      A def'n of what? There are many def'ns that are general and apply to many things, not just specific cases. Isn't what you just stated a general def'n to apply to all def'ns?

      You can not define an equation.

      Define in what sense? I can make up an arbitrary, meaningless equation that has no real world correlation. It's not very useful, but I defined it.

      There is nothing inherent in the definition of any of the base units, or even in the derived units, that imply the relationships involved. Units can not be intrinictly coherent. They are coherent to a body of equations.


      Isn't that what I've been saying for the past two posts? I believe I specifically said (many times but not in these exact words) that we have a set of mathematical relationships describing phenomena and that the units used to quantify these relationships must be consistent according to these mathematical relationships. The units can be arbitrarily chosen as long as they are consistent with the systems. I never stated that the SI units are absolute and had to be defined that way. I only said the mathematical relationships of the phenomena must be preserved, ie. the defined system of units must be consistent with them.

      CGS units are coherent, as are SI units. But they are not coherent to the other's equations.

      With the conversion factors placed in the appropriate locations I'm sure they are (I don't see why they wouldn't be), but then again I don't know for certain.

      One has a series of relationships that define things. ... [etc.] ...So how many base units for electricity? four or six?"

      This is all well and good, but you are seriously straying from the subject at hand. We got into this long and protracted discussion because you said that SI was a hodgepodge system meant to clip the wings of foreign aspirations (or some such things which you still haven't explained) and then made some questionable (still) unbacked statements of how much better Imperial (or other system) is than SI.

      There is no reason that in future some compelling reason will evolve for us to associate the candela with the watt. I mean, they used to measure resistances in miles (of copper wire).

      No argument here. All I've said is that as long as the relationships inherent in the mathematics are preserved, you can do whatever the hell you want with the units.

      You are looking at the number, not the practical implication of measurement. Have you ever tried to construct a cube of a specific volume. It's easy to do a cylinder, since these can be turned on a lathe, which is why you see lots of cylinder measures. But a cube?

      Well, how precise are talking here? Besides, I don't see how changing the name from volume to capacity and using a different unit will somehow magically alleviate the problems of constructing a container of sufficiently accurate volume/capacity. Once the capacity/volume is known (in whatever units), it's possible to convert into cylindrical dimensions (with some practical loss in precision due to pi).

      History is important, because it decides the evolving patterns[...]

      I never argued otherwise, but this has nothing to do with why SI is a bad unit system and Imperial (or whatever your preference) is good. This is what we are discussing. All this stuff you talked about would have been very interesting had it been on topic, but it is not what we started originally discussing. Let's get back to the issue at hand.

      Have a nice evening.

    10. Re:SI and its base units. by os2fan · · Score: 2
      It's nice that you argue that the Imperial system is a coherent single system,

      The reason that I say the SI is a hodgepodge is that it is not anything like the sorts of systems that arise from theory. Much of theory had to be rewritten to accomidate the features of SI.

      The electrical units pre-existed the MKS by many years: that there was a connexion to be made was only found in 1905. That is, the kilogram is a derived unit in the m-J-s system.

      The reason that the mole was elevated to a separate base unit, was that the older dimension was M. In the MKS, this would have made the kilomole the base unit. This is what was actually used. SI gets around using gram-moles and kilograms, by making the mole a base unit.

      The terms "practical" and "rationalised", bandied around as if they were things to be valued, actually have quite different meanings.

      "Practical" is made out to mean that the units are of practical size. In fact, all it means is that the Joule, Watt, Ohm, Volt, etc, are part of it. The centimetre-dekatonne-second system [Mie] is "Practical". I made one out of the foot-Joule-second as well. V, A, ohm, F, H, second, watt, joule, Wb and C are unchanged. Mass=hile, force = trood, length=foot. J=foot^2*hile/s^2. Make the hile represents the "slug", and 100 degC = 140 degT. A new weight "bess" is needed so that trood = bess-force. In this system, J = foot-bess-force, and kJ=bess * degT * joule constant.

      "Rationalised" is made out to mean "rational" or "logical". It actually means an adjustment to bring together values. When the 4pi is introduced into coulombs equation, it makes some measures equal. For example, in polarised media, J, M, P were 4pi of the induced fields B, H, D. After rationalisation, they become equal. Displacement originally referred to the displaced electrical charge P [as in the International Critical Tables], but when P=Di, this allowed D to become also displacement.

      In any case, rationalisation means the system was fiddled with afterwards, ie not self evident. Gravity and light have not been fiddled with, so the system is incoherent over this respect.

      I never said that imperial wasn't coherent (nor did I say it was).

      Sorry: my mistake. :(

      On the other hand, the metric system called SI, which is used with Litres, is somehow a hodgepodge of different systems.

      If it is acceptable to use it with SI, and other units not with SI, then why reject from the system?

      You are the one who originally said SI is a hodgepodge, but now you're saying that it's not? Is this now what you meant? It is essentially what this sentence is saying.

      That SI has seven base units where other systems need only three or four, is a pretty good sign.

      Things that are measured take singular: money is coming in from ..., where counted things take plural: cattle are coming in from ...

      Very well, so what is this in response to? I don't see how this has much to do with what I said...

      It's in relation to the difference between a number and a measure

      But that did not stop you from demanding the source for the recent status of the mole.

      Of course I did.

      Fair enough.

      Notes on the definition of "ampere". Are these your own definitions and arguments, or taken from the documents you referenced? It is a paraphrase of the actual definition, and considerations in the construction of reproducable resistences, as I quoted

      A definition, can only be true for a specific case.

      You can only define, for example, that a pound-force is the gravity acting on a pound. You can define a function, as well: for example, square ~ as the area of a square of side ~. But you can not then having defined a foot=12 inches, and the relation of square to linear measure, then define a square foot as 144 square inches. You can not define an equation.

      If all the elements of an equation are defined, the equation can not also be defined. The equality is either true or false, or irrelevant.

      Define in what sense? I can make up an arbitrary, meaningless equation that has no real world correlation. It's not very useful, but I defined it.

      True. That's how most quantities start out: someone defines a measure that is sort of useful.

      With the conversion factors placed in the appropriate locations I'm sure they are (I don't see why they wouldn't be), but then again I don't know for certain.

      Flux from a charge Q, in SI flux=Q; in CGS; flux = 4.pi.Q

      Capacity and Volume

      Capacity and volume are the same concept: space, but there the distinction is needed because there are a lot of measures that are not derived from the linear dimensions of the vessel. Is not the imperial gallon derived from the pound?

      History is important, because it decides the evolving patterns[...]

      Historical ideas are important, because the way we see measures change over time, as does our use of number. For example, around 1900, the style was to use large numbers of small units: CGS, grains and inches. In 1980, the style is to use small numbers of large units, MKS, pounds and feet. You would miss that if you were not aware of it.

      Relying on historical wreckage can lead you into the same mistake I heard of about women's feet in China. The servey merely looked at their feet and ages, and noted a movement of the feet in certian trends. This reflects changing customs, not biological presures.

      Have a nice evening. :)

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    11. Re:SI and its base units. by naasking · · Score: 1

      I would love to continue this discussion, but unfortunately I have too much work to do. See you around.

    12. Re:SI and its base units. by os2fan · · Score: 2

      It's been nice talking to you. Thanks

      --
      OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
  85. how soon they forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  86. 160 Knots! by strictnein · · Score: 1

    What speed!

  87. Joy Rides, fuel and the second race for space by enigmatic+anomaly · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:Joy Rides, fuel and the second race for space by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Relax. We could launch armadas of DC-Xs from our airports and the total pollution wouldn't begin to touch the disaster of our coal-fired plants, and most especially our beloved cars.

      'Sides, a ship would usually use H2 as the propellent -- and it combines with O2 to make...

      Water.

  88. A beautiful thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  89. Think out of the bottle by fm6 · · Score: 2
    Ground laser launching relies on superheating air, plus it's only been used to shove vehicles directly up, so it's basically a really cool but expensive way to replace July 4 bottle rockets.
    That doesn't make sense. Isn't going up the hard part? Consider the S1-C Stage used in the Apollo missions. It expended 5 millionpounds of fuel just to lift the rest of the hardware out of the mesosphere. This compares to 1 million pounds get the rest of the way, and a few thousand pounds to get back. Finding a more efficient alternative to such a large, expensive, non-reusable vehicle wouldn't complete eliminate the need for rockets, but it would certainly make a big difference in the cost of space exploration!
    1. Re:Think out of the bottle by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • That doesn't make sense. Isn't going up the hard part?

      Uhhh... no. Going sideways at 7.73 km/s is the hard part. Once you hit that speed (assuming you don't burn up, which you would, so you have to accelerate as you rise out of the atmosphere), you'll rise to 300km and stay there. If you just rise to 300km with no angular speed, you'll come straight back down again. Not much use for putting satellites into, what's the word... orbit.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Think out of the bottle by fm6 · · Score: 2

      OK, I'm no engineer, and I never really looked at this idea before I read your jibe. But if I understand this explanation of laser propulsion, there's no reason the thrust has to be strictly vertical. The thrust comes out of a nozzle, just as with a chemical rocket.

    3. Re:Think out of the bottle by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • if I understand this explanation [osd.mil] of laser propulsion, there's no reason the thrust has to be strictly vertical. The thrust comes out of a nozzle

      ...in theory. The last that I heard, Lightcraft are still at the stage of shooting tiny disks straight up in the air, with no nozzles or lateral motion.

      Actually, that's not strictly true, the disks do experience lateral forces - when the reflective base fails catastrophically in one area and explodes, or when the disks pick up a wobble and tumble out of the air.

      It's a truly appealing idea, but (again, AFAIK) the practice is lagging way, way behind the theory. I'm having a hard time picturing them getting anything into orbit without dropping it or frying it to a crisp.

      Perhaps our best hope is that Son of Star Wars spins off some useful technology in this area.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:Think out of the bottle by fm6 · · Score: 2
      So laser propulsion has a dubious background and a poor track record. So did rocketry at one time. You could argue that rocketry still has a poor track record. In any case, I think it's silly to pre-judge all the alternatives to rocketry as pure pipe dreams.

      Excuse me if this comes across as a flame, but you only seem to want to look at arguments that LP is a boondogle. Did you even look at the link I provided before? Or have you seen these proposals?

      None of which means I care for all the "Star Wars" nonsense that seems to be associated with alternative propulsion technologies. Weapons of mass destruction can't be handled by some fancy technofix. But perhaps thats what really has hurt oddball systems like laser propulsion: they have an unfortunate association with folks motivated by nationalistic ideology or military career-building -- not a geninuine interest in space exploration.

      But this association shouldn't prejudice us against the very idea of finding alternatives to rockets. As the guy who started this thread pointed out, it's a damned inefficient means of propulsion. A serious return to space just isn't going to happen until we find an alternative.

    5. Re:Think out of the bottle by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • you only seem to want to look at arguments that LP is a boondogle. Did you even look at the link I provided before

      Er, yes, and I've looked at all the pretty concept art that looks like it's been done by the same guy that drew all those flying cars back in the 1950's.

      Again, I really like the idea of light propulsion, but the reality is a long, long way off. That's not to say that we shouldn't pursue it, only that we should be careful about throwing money at it just because it's appealing and exciting. The results (so far) simply don't justify it. Once it works reliably for simple toys, then I'd be 100% behind scaling it up, but the proof of concept has to come first.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  90. Lord bless this rockethouse by thejake316 · · Score: 1

    And all who dwell within the rockethouse

    --
    AC's cheerfully ignored
  91. Another prize they could win by MacGod · · Score: 1

    "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