Slashdot Mirror


Amateur Rocket Heads Into Space

scubacuda writes "Space.com has an article on a group of amateur rocketeers (the Civilian Space Xploration Team) hoping to send the first amateur rocket, Primera Spaceshot 2002, into space by the end of June from the Black Rock Desert in Nevada. If all goes well with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the team will send a rocket stands about 17 feet tall (5.18 meters) and weighs 550 pounds (249 kilograms) 62 nautical miles (114 kilometers) in the atmosphere (12 miles higher than the 50-mile altitude largely regarded as the boundary of space). (MSN version here)"

244 comments

  1. Rocketguy by Oily+Tuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're going to beat the Oregon Rocketguy. That's sad.

    --
    Mmmmmmm ... sushi.
    1. Re:Rocketguy by dbolger · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't worry; this team are doing an unmanned launch. Rocketguy can still be the first one to get the Darwin Award for it.

    2. Re:Rocketguy by yumyum · · Score: 1

      Now, how can this post above be Redundant, when it is the first one (earliest) around at +1 filtering? WTF?

  2. newsflash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSN and MSNBC are not the same company, they just share the same owner

  3. Space... by URoRRuRRR · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Once there, they're meet up with Rocket Guy.

    --
    "Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
  4. Solid, not liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it's interesting that this rocket uses solid propellant rather than the liquid fuel that most high-altitude rockets use. Might this be the first completely solid fueled rocket to reach space?

    1. Re:Solid, not liquid by owlmeat · · Score: 0, Troll

      No

      --
      They stab it with their steely knives,

      But they just can't kill the beast.

    2. Re:Solid, not liquid by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1


      Do you really expect amateurs of this nature to design, produce, implement, etc a liquid fuel system? Not that I am saying they are dumb or anything, these people are quite intelligent and have been able to work through their designs to produce an optimal configuration for their particular rocket. But the complexities of a liquid fuel system are enormous. Controlling flow rates, storing propellant under pressures, making sure connections can withstand the forces of being propelled to 3500 mph in under 15 seconds, controlling the liquid mixture at the point of ignition, etc. Liquid fuel systems typically require entire design teams with Phds or Ms in Aerospace or equivalent engineering. The solid fuel is horribly easy, just jam some propellant in there, make sure it is compact enough and held in tightly enough to not fall out, and bam you are done.

    3. Re:Solid, not liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      and bam you are done

      Nice choice of words.

    4. Re:Solid, not liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, as I remember Goddard did okay using the primitive technology and limited knowledge and experience he had. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a bunch of determined and knowledgable amateurs could build a working liquid rocket. A bunch of amateurs have done things at least as complex before, and will continue to do so in the future, whether you like it or not.

    5. Re:Solid, not liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You drastically oversimplify solid-fuled rockets. If you think you can simply "jam some propellent in there," you should try.

      The solid fuel mixture must be properly homogenous, for one thing, or else it will burn unevenly. Air bubbles, even tiny ones, are a huge problem. And the proper mixture must have a steady and predictable burn rate. The difficulties involved in this are the precise reason liquid fuel is used. Not to make life more challenging, but to overcome the obstacles to what you seem to think is such a simple process.

      Cheers,
      Dan

    6. Re:Solid, not liquid by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 2

      Someone evidently watched 'October Sky'...

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    7. Re:Solid, not liquid by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Informative
      The difficulties involved in this are the precise reason liquid fuel is used.
      You're right about the difficulties of solid fuel rockets but not that they're the reason liquid fuel is used. The reason is simple: solid fuel allows no control over the burn. You can't change thrust except in predetermined ways, you can't shut it down, you can't restart it. That's why liquid fuel is necessary for all but the simplest applications.
    8. Re:Solid, not liquid by antirename · · Score: 1

      Sorry, liquid fueled rockets that use a variant on a turbo to use the thrust to pressurize the fuel have been common knowledge in the industry for a while. I'm guessing that they went with solid fuel to save money, use what they had, or really do something different.

    9. Re:Solid, not liquid by dankjones · · Score: 1

      What about escape velocity? Isn't that number important ot something?

    10. Re:Solid, not liquid by teaserX · · Score: 3, Informative

      LOX liiquid fuel systems are indeed complex. Peroxide systems on the other hand are simple. Anyone with access to machining tools could build one in an afternoon. The basic design requires a presurized fuel tank supplying a jet that sprays the peroxide through silver screens in the reaction chamber of the thruster. Lenght of flight can be determined by adusting the pressure in the tank and the flow through the jet. Check out the lander the guys at http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/are developing. The controls are complex the basic design of the motors is not. Try Google for more peroxide rocket motor designs. You'll see what I mean.

      --
      We really need your help
      http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
    11. Re:Solid, not liquid by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      Modern ICBM's are solid fueled, and they can certainly reach that height.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    12. Re:Solid, not liquid by taniwha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      HPR people have been scaling up solids (using AP&rubber - basicly the same stuff the shuttle boosters use) for over a decade now - big AP rockets are not that unusual these days and have been flown to at least 100k ft (20 miles) - they are just expensive to build (propellent can cost several $1000).

      100kft is a magic number - at that point the FAA loses juristiction (we fly the smaller stuff with FAA waivers) and you have to apply to a different part of the federal govt. - the paper work is pretty intimidating - it's designed to stop people dropping dangerous things on other countrys and causing international incidents.

      Building amateur liquid propellent motors is hard - you have to get the fuel and oxidiser into the combustion chamber - that means a pressure higher than the chamber pressure - either a turbo pump - or a pressure system of some kind (for example gaseous O2 as an oxidiser at a high pressure, or an inert gas say N2 at pressure pushing a liquid say LOX or kerosene) pressure systems mean more weight.

      One system we have been flying with recently is a hybrid based system - a liquid oxidiser with a solid fuel (basicly the combustion chamber's wall burn). It turns out that nitrous oxide (yes laughing gas) is a room-temp cryogenic liquid that self-pressurizes at above chamber pressure - this means it self-pumps and can be throttled. Paint ball tanks make great light-weight pressure vessels and nitrous is available at your local speed shop, flights are cheap. It does have some downsides - it burns so efficiently that rockets make no smoke and are hard to track, it's also hard to light (of course it gets real cold when it expands).

    13. Re:Solid, not liquid by Dilbert_ · · Score: 2

      Doesn't the Space Shuttle use solid fuel? Or is that only in the boosters?

      --
      superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
    14. Re:Solid, not liquid by mikerich · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No, the United States used to use the Scout family of launchers to place small payloads (less than 150 kg) into orbit.

      Solid fuel rockets have some great properties - they are relatively simple, lacking all the plumbing of a liquid system, the propellants are quite stable and they are easier to transport.

      BUT, they are less controllable - when they start burning they only stop when the fuel is gone, a liquid rocket can throttle its power for optimal performance.

      Good luck to them.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    15. Re:Solid, not liquid by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Now that is cool.

      Hydrogen peroxide has also been used as an oxidiser with kerosene fuel. The British Black Arrow launcher used the system to put our only satellite into orbit.

      Take a look at the photo of the launch of Prospero (it's a Geocities site so it might be slashdotted by the second person who uses it :) ). There is a smaller image here.

      Amazingly clean looking exhaust, the rocket almost seems to be hanging there.

      The entire programme was cancelled in one of Britain's perennial financial crises of the time. The Black Arrow went on to become the first stage of Europe's ELDO launcher, which was in turn cancelled following failures of its upper stages. Sadly, we then abandoned rocket development.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    16. Re:Solid, not liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in the boosters. The rest is liquid hydrogen and oxygen.

    17. Re:Solid, not liquid by RocketGeek · · Score: 1
      Slight correction, Blue Streak was the first stage of the ELDO launcher, not Black Arrow. There was a proposal to mate either Black Arrow or Black Knight atop Blue Streak to form a another, larger, wholly British orbital vehicle - I think it was provisionally called Black Prince, but I could be wrong there.

      The first stage of the ELDO launcher (called Europa I think) was definitely Blue Streak though, because I knew/know a couple of guys who worked on it.

    18. Re:Solid, not liquid by Woodmeister · · Score: 1

      Escape Velocity is only important if you never want to see your rocket again ;-) Even then it's only important when your maximum momentum is achived at lift-off. Most long-burning rockets need not come close to escape velocity to reach alts of 100 miles or more.

      --

      Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
      -Possum Lodge Motto
    19. Re:Solid, not liquid by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2

      Good liquid fueled rockets are hard to do right. Most of the propellants/oxidizers are either cryogenic (H2, LOX) or simply evil (Monomethyl Hydrazine, H202) There are some great publications available on-line over at NASA's History Office that document the development of boosters for various programs. I particularly recommend "Chariots for Apollo" which covers the boosters and the actual spacecraft engines. There's a reason why we refer to difficult projects as "rocket science!"

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    20. Re:Solid, not liquid by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      it burns so efficiently that rockets make no smoke and are hard to track,

      I am profoundly fascinated. Do you have any numbers on the specific impulse of this configuration?

    21. Re:Solid, not liquid by sokoloff · · Score: 1
      100kft is a magic number - at that point the FAA loses juristiction
      Are you sure about that? 60kft is the vertical limit of class A airspace. Airspace reverts to class E (uncontrolled above 60000).
    22. Re:Solid, not liquid by mduell · · Score: 2

      E is covered by the FAA, you just don't (usually) have ATC breathing down your neck...

    23. Re:Solid, not liquid by taniwha · · Score: 1

      actually the issue has to do with dropping stuff on other countries, diplomatic incidents etc etc

      Checking up I see I was slighly wrong - the organization was folded into the FAA a few years back. It's still independant of the people we normally have to get a permit for high-power flights under 100k ft

    24. Re:Solid, not liquid by Theik · · Score: 1

      I was watching a show on discovery on you guys and all I have to say is "good luck" and best wishes.

  5. Hombrew Rockets = Trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hasn't anyone been to a drag car race at the local drag strip? Bunch of d-i-y hot rods made from strewn together junk racin away trying to mimic the pros .... inevitably, at least blows up every night ... or horribly malfunctions .... but hey ... at least they aren't rockets! This cannot be a good thing,

    1. Re:Hombrew Rockets = Trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, better not try anything even remotely dangerous anymore. Forgot doing any electrial work. Forgot fixing your car yourself. Forgot driving down the street, you could get killed! Shit, we better even stop baking because we might get burned or burn the house down!

      You gotta take risks to make progress.

    2. Re:Hombrew Rockets = Trouble by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

      Yeah! Just like riding motorcycles and doing drugs and smoking cigarettes! We shouldn't let risks get in the way of progress!

      There is a thing called a "calculated risk", by the way. Some people don't know how to do calculations anymore though, or they would realize that some attempts are just plain stupid.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    3. Re:Hombrew Rockets = Trouble by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      these guys are gonna light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance. that might count as dangerous in nevada but i don't see too many of them getting hurt if they got a long enough wick.

    4. Re:Hombrew Rockets = Trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is: this isn't one of them.

    5. Re:Hombrew Rockets = Trouble by WileEDingo · · Score: 1

      I've seen a few Amateur RocketHeads. Wild eyes, fuzzy ideas. Some have difficulties working a pay phone (mmmm... potato chips). Mildly dangerous folk. I'll bet my hairy yellow butt that the world will be a safer place with them in space.

  6. What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    makes you think you'll get karma for being first post? More likely you'll lose karma for having no relevance whatsoever.

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

      He didn't say he needed positive karma.

    2. Re:What... by 1lus10n · · Score: 0

      eaxactly ... i just said i needed some karma
      at least now im negative karma
      instead of having none at all

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
  7. Now if we could just... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Now, if this thing works, and if enough slashdotters got together and funded another orbital launch, I wonder whether we could get a functioning 802.11b node up there in space.

    From it, we could then run nultiple streaming radio shows without paying a cent to the RIAA.

    Of course, since it would be in a LEO, it could be configured to provide total global coverage -- albeit just one area at a time.

    Add a webserver and we'd finally have total freedom of speech -- Until Georgie boy shot it out of the heavens with one of his THAAD missiles at it that is :-)

    After all, it's bound to be a threat to national security -- at least that's what the RIAA would probably say.

    1. Re:Now if we could just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just move to sealand and stop being silly.

    2. Re:Now if we could just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one thing, you'd need a pretty big Pringles can to use an 802.11b node in LEO. :)

    3. Re:Now if we could just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do have a point there.

      Why not create an island nation for the sole purpose of free speech?

    4. Re:Now if we could just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the only people to talk to would be people like you. Or do you mean free as in theft?

    5. Re:Now if we could just... by zobier · · Score: 1

      If a project like this was to plant a LEO payload then another MIR style amateur radio BBS would be kind of cool.

      Maybe the (project like this') co-ordinators could take people's submissions for payload ideas, then they and/or we could vote on the best and send it/them along also.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    6. Re:Now if we could just... by FatBobSmith · · Score: 1

      Honestly, with the amount of money that Kuroshin has generated over the past few days, $100,000 from Slashdot users to make a /.rocket should be easy. Who cares what we stick up there. Let's just do it because we can.

      While we're up there, someone could drop a huge EMP pulse down to the planet surface for the ultimate slashdotting...

    7. Re:Now if we could just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You eat your boogers don't you?

  8. Re:Better than NASA I hope by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

    Nope, in the writeup we have a mixing of land miles, nautical miles, and metric kilometers.

    This screams failure.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
  9. Rocket Science by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    Even with advanced electronics, it is going to be interesting to see how successful they are.

    Balancing a pile of shivering metal on a pillar of flame is not all that easy.

    After all, they don't call it rocket science for nothing.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Rocket Science by Oily+Tuna · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not trivial no, but lots of people have solved the problem before without advanced electronics. They aren't going into space on first principles; I'm sure they've been to the library and read a book or two

      --
      Mmmmmmm ... sushi.
  10. Re: Absolutely Free $50 Designer Pen - Take the AO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What colour ink is in the pen?

  11. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All major screw-ups in the space program can be directly traced to a contractor. Federalize the entire work force, and eliminate contractors. Only then will NASA be great.

    COntractors are evil-doers.
    Federal employees are GOOD.

  12. Re:Now if we could just..(obligatory) by Vengie · · Score: 1

    Sorry....but obligatory... So now we have networks in space.... So isnt it only a matter of time before we have an orbital beowulf cluster? ;)

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  13. Sounds like S.A.L.V.A.G.E. by uncoveror · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This reminds me of the late 70s (or was it early 80s) TV movie that became a series, S.A.L.V.A.G.E. in which amateur rocketeers built a rocket in a junkyard and went to the moon. I was a little kid then, but the show was cool! IF CSXT can pull this off, they should start a satellite launching business. They would probably do a better job than NASA, considering it's new cost cutting plan.
    http://www.uncoveror.com/nasa.htm

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    1. Re:Sounds like S.A.L.V.A.G.E. by Wee · · Score: 2
      It was 1979. What a great trashy show! That was the era of great trashy TV. You had (of course) Battlestar Galactica and Land of the Lost and Ark II and (my all-time favorite since Race Bannon, although he may have been Dr. Benton Quest's gay lover -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- kicked major outer-space spider ass with an M1 garand at the drop of a hat) Johnny Quest. And not that new crap they shovel down the Nintendo generation's throats, either. They can't screw with my childhood. The real Johnny Quest had bongos and snakes and crocodiles released by madmen and .50 cal machine guns on the back of Jeeps godammit. When you heard the "Caravan" theme song, you felt like action. That new shit just makes you want to buy a toy for your kid so he'll shut up already.

      Damn. Now you've made me all nostalgic. Anyone here remember "World Beyond" in Phoenix, AZ in the summers on Saturday morning? They had great trashy sci-fi movies and a ZZ Top guitar riff for intro music? Anyone remember Edmus Scary? Had AC/DC's "Back in Black" for a doorbell?

      Damn again. Sometimes I miss being a kid. Then I remember how badly 9th grade sucked and I get over it.

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    2. Re:Sounds like S.A.L.V.A.G.E. by antirename · · Score: 1

      Not without a lot of fuel they won't. And probably not with this rocket. Most of a rocket's weight is in it's fuel, and that weight is lost as the fuel burns. The payload is a constant weight... and sats are heavy.

  14. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where did you see land miles? Hint: 62 == 12+50.

  15. Hah by qslack · · Score: 2

    I got dibs on their computers! Who wants their TVs?

    Oh come on, you just know they aren't going to need them anymore.

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

      Dumbass, they're not ON the rocket.

    2. Re:Hah by qslack · · Score: 1

      They are near the launch site, though.

  16. FAA by URoRRuRRR · · Score: 3, Funny

    The FAA won't clear them to fly. Why? To protect them from the The Terrible Secret of Space!

    --
    "Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
  17. I want one. by SHEENmaster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will we be able to buy them in a twelve pack like flying cars in the year 2000?

    Oh well, guess not. We should get both by <?php echo year+25;?>.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:I want one. by Strandman · · Score: 1

      When you consider the already junky orbit of earth, what would it be like if every household had one.
      And used it to celebrate everything once in a while.

      Did I hear "Solution to global warming`?"

      Better still, with all these asteroids visiting nearby, maybe the space junk could stop the asteroid. Just like a iron shield of junk.

  18. Re:Better than NASA I hope by uncoveror · · Score: 1

    Americans use nautical miles becuse we don't understand the metric system. The right wing kooks used to think it was a communist plot, and rednecks still do. Most of us, in fact, don't know if a nautical mile is the same as a regular mile, a "country mile," or "a mile as the crow flies." It's mostly ignorance, not arrogance.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  19. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    62 nautical miles != 12 miles + 50 miles

  20. Re: Absolutely Free $50 Designer Pen - Take the AO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a red pen. I'd like a blue one. Do MSN do blue?

  21. ...but it gets you chicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...'Cuz you can't spell "hombrew" without "hombre".

  22. More Information ... by ProfMoriarty · · Score: 3, Informative
    Is on the Amateur Radio Relay League web page ...

    From that article ...

    "Amateur Radio is central to the whole flight," said Eric Knight, KB1EHE, of Unionville, Connecticut--one of the hams involved. He explained that the rocket's Automatic Position Reporting System (APRS), amateur TV and packet telemetry gear will enable the team to document its success.
    Also ... it appears to be done fairly reasonably ... only $100,000 ... not too shabby ... and well within reach of us "normal" people ... :)
    --
    Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
    1. Re:More Information ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate following up my own posts ... but even more info and pictures are on the "official" spaceshot website ...

  23. Silly European Tricks... by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 2

    > We use ISO A4 here.

    Yes, leave it to the Europeans to have to have an ISO standard to tell them what to write letters on... ;-)

    --

    Chasing Amy
    (We all chase Amy...)
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
    1. Re:Silly European Tricks... by gibler · · Score: 0

      I'm not from Europe you dickhead. There is more to the World than just Europe and the US.

      Read and learn something:

      http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

    2. Re:Silly European Tricks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose a new American standard of time. It will be equal to 3.5912 seconds. I will call it... the gibler.

    3. Re:Silly European Tricks... by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

      Are you going to write up an RFC?

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    4. Re:Silly European Tricks... by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 1

      > I'm not from Europe you dickhead.

      Sorry, I just assume anyone with such a snooty attitude who makes dumb American jokes must be European. Probably French, if they're extra-snooty... ;-)

      > There is more to the World than just Europe and the US.

      Sorry, I only take note of people and places with accomplishments. :-) Only the U.S. and Europe therefore matter. The rest of the world is just chaff, only good at soccer and getting AIDS. Sorry, but it's the truth... ;-)

      --

      Chasing Amy
      (We all chase Amy...)
      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
    5. Re:Silly European Tricks... by Australian+werewolf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Never been to Japan? Australia? New Zealand?

      Sounds like you only take note of places you have been educated about. Which is not very many, judging by your comments.

    6. Re:Silly European Tricks... by JayAndSilentBob · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This tubby bitch always tells that fuckin' amy story. But he never says anything else! Snoogans.

      --


      Love,
      Jay and Silent Bob
    7. Re:Silly European Tricks... by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      As for Australia and New Zealand, their aboriginal peoples never accomplished anything more noteworthy than figuring out how to build tools out of sticks, so they don't count. Their current European inhabitants haven't acomplished much, either...

      The most advanced American technlogy must therefore be the bow and arrow, since everything else has been done by the "current European inhabitants".

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  24. 10 minute flight. by Linuxathome · · Score: 2, Insightful
    All this in just 10 minutes? Wow, talk about instant gratification.

    On a side note, the article says:

    Michaelson said his team, made up of people from around the country, had an original launch date of Sept. 26, 2001, but pushed it back to June following the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11.

    How much are you willing to bet that Tom Ridge's folks are keeping a keen eye on their team? Whatever they learn about rocketry must give the feds the willies.

    1. Re:10 minute flight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I got any gratification it only lasted 2-3 seconds. And considering the money and effort I put into flight preparations they are probably getting more bang for their buck. Especially considering the last half dozen launch attempts got shot down before I even got it out of the silo.

      Warning: Contains 99% double entendre by volume.

    2. Re:10 minute flight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warning: Contains 99% double entendre by volume

      That one of those paradox things you've got there ... if you explain that the DE exists, then it doesn't.

      Don't worry, one day you'll get the hang of humour.

    3. Re:10 minute flight. by Thing+1 · · Score: 2
      How much are you willing to bet that Tom Ridge's folks are keeping a keen eye on their team? Whatever they learn about rocketry must give the feds the willies.

      Granted there's a legitimate reason for the Homeland Security to exist, but I am concerned that we're being manipulated into staying scared.

      I watched the Simpsons yesterday (I think it had been recorded the previous day -- ReplayTV), it was the one where they went to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

      They interrupted the broadcast, not once but twice, first to say a plane was near the White House and its radio had broken (not in so many words; they stressed the words "evacuated the White House!" over and over).

      They broke in again to say "No worries."

      I lost about a third of the show. If I want news, I'll turn on CNN. Thanks. </rant>

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  25. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem pretty confused.

    1 nautical mile = 1.852 kilometers
    1 land mile = 1.609 kilometers
    1 mile = 1 nautical mile or 1 land mile depending on context.

  26. Are rocketeers a dying breed by Radical+Rad · · Score: 2

    I went to a ham radio fest recently for the first time, and I noticed that most of the guys there were older men. I guess ham radio must have seemed a lot more exciting to young people several decades ago. And I know that is true with Rocketry because of the hype back in the fifties and sixties over the russian ICBMs and getting to the moon first. So what do you guys think, are rocketeers a dying breed or is it an interest which is becoming more popular lately? On the one hand, many of the fifties-era, crew-cut, slide-rule carrying rocket scientists are gone. But OTOH, you don't have to be a superpower to get in the game now and space may be on the verge of commercialization. So is Aerospace Engineering a "cool" profession for the next generation?

  27. I used to fly rockets there by dcstimm · · Score: 1

    When I lived In Las Vegas I used to shoot off my rockets in that desert, its amazing that something this historic is being held in the same place I flew off my PBC pipe rocks we made in tech class! Very very very cool! oh well Hopefully they wont hit a plane or something...:-)

  28. First attempt failed... by rob-fu · · Score: 1

    IANARS(I am not a rocket scientist), but looking at the picture of the first rocket, it looks like an American flag was tied on to the side of it. I don't know anything about rockets, but wouldn't this flag cause problems as far as aerodynamics and wind, etc?

    The first try was brought down by wind shear, but the article didn't go into explicit detail about the crash. Just based on watching NASA shuttle launches, I never saw anything like that hanging off the side of the rocket. Maybe this would have caused a problem? Or is the flag so insignificant compared to the propulsion of the rocket?

    1. Re:First attempt failed... by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it was just a picture of a flagpole next to the launch site......

      --

      -Bucky
    2. Re:First attempt failed... by rob-fu · · Score: 1

      I looked at a larger picture. No, the flag is NOT attached to the rocket. Sorry.

    3. Re:First attempt failed... by RocketGeek · · Score: 1
      I was at the launch.

      The flag was attached to the launch tower, _Not_ the rocket.

      And as for the wind shear, I videoed the flight all the way up to the point where something went wrong (at around 39,000 feet as I recall), and I still think it could have been the nosecone coming off rather than wind shear.

      The condition of the rocket after it came back was far better than I had expected too. It was battered, but for something that had fallen that far, I thought it stood up to the impact very well. Ky builds his rockets strong, that's for sure :-)

      Regardless, Ky Michaelson is a really nice guy, and deserves to succeed. Fingers crossed, he will.

  29. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see you're a reasonable person, so don't take this as sarcasm, cynism or with any offensive tint... this is meant to be didatic.

    There's nothing to be understood in the metrical system. You just have to get used to it.

    For instance, 2m means a person is way tall, while 1,50 means someone is shorty. That simple.

    Kilo means thousand. So a thousand meters is a Kilometer. A thousand grams make a Kilogram. A thousand Watts make a Kilowatt. Simple.

    Just that: basic units plus some prefixes...

    You don't have to learn about milimeters: just remember 1000 of them makes a meter.

    It's not 12, not 50, not 2.54, not 33... no such numbers -- just powers of ten. All the time. Always.

    1 cubic meter? Easy: a thousand liters.

    And there's no English or French liter, no Imperial liter, no nautical liter: just one type of liter and you _always_ need 1000 to make a cubic meter.

    Maybe you know all this, but I just wanted to give you the feeling of how simple it is. Yet it helps little when I deal with astronomical distances.

    Good luck.

  30. Re:Better than NASA I hope by rob-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not trying to go offtopic but I agree. The Challenger explosion back in 1986 (or was it 85) was caused by the decision to launch in extremely cold weather by the contractor, Morton-Thiokol (not sure on the exact name, but that's close).

    There was a documentary recently about the explosion and they interviewed the head engineer of the project, who fought to abort the launch but was overridden by management, but they wouldn't listen to him.

  31. PARENT IS ON TOPIC AND FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is!

  32. Re:First Post as an Adult! by bucky0 · · Score: 1

    Happy Birthday!

    --

    -Bucky
  33. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're going to trust a bunch of laypeople to get the flight parameters correct? Ha!

  34. I know he's a little crazy... by sat985 · · Score: 1

    I've met the guy once or twice an heard about losin a fin couple years back. guy has a screw or two loose but the math seems proper. From wha i undertand the guy had to put up a fight to the faa/military to launch the thing. they gave em a fair amount of flack on the whole rocket launch shit.

  35. What a shame... by kosipov · · Score: 1

    that our fellow Slashdotter/Linux nut/3D guru John Carmack isn't launching his XPrize contender. For those who are not following his adventures in amateur rocketry, a few years back he started a company called Armadillo Aerospace which is a hobby project of sorts. They have created prototypes for hydrogen peroxide powered landers and are working on a suborbital launch in a near future.

    1. Re:What a shame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made a cool crater in my back yard playing around with H2O2 when I was a kid trying to make a *real* rocket. Hydrogen peroxide is dangerous stuff!

  36. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fool. Everyone knows 1 foot is the distance light travels in 1 nanosecond. In crappy metric system, its 1 meter is like 3.05 nanoseconds. That makes metric system more complimicated.

  37. Re:First Post as an Adult! by ChanxOT5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heh, but somehow I don't imagine it being the first time you've said 'Yes, I'm 18' on the web.

  38. Should wait until Burning Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys should wait until the Labor Day weekend, so they can make the launch part of the Burning Man Festival

  39. Re:First Post as an Adult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you can vote. Get married. Drive a car. Fight in a war.

    Doesn't it annoy you that you aren't allowed a pint of an evening?

  40. Re:First Post as an Adult! by Drunken+Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations! You may now be charged as an adult for all crimes you commit, unless it happens to be done while following orders in the US military, which you are also eligible for.

    --
    Have you been stalked by Seth today?
  41. Re:Better than NASA I hope by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nautical miles are slightly longer than "plain" miles. They are 6076 feet, which is the length of a one minute arc on the earth's surface. I have no idea how the 5280' mile got its length.
    I think the main reason that we haven't picked up the metric system is that American's have learned about how big a foot, yard, gallon, and the like are, but don't have any good estimates for how big kilograms, liters, and centimeters are. Also the average american hasn't done dynamics under the english system, messing up lbf and lbm more times than I could count in college was enough for me to see the logic in the metric system.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  42. Coming soon by Procrasturbator · · Score: 0

    In future news, the Civilian Space Xploration Team is dead.

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Re:Dangerous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorists use American ingenuity, initially designed for peace and the well being of humanity, to attack it.

    I think South East Asia would disagree. Your American jingoist rhetoric is reflective of your in-grown racist tedencies. Please take a history lessen in a place other than Arkansas.

  45. Re:First post idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot should do what fark does and change all offtopic jackass comments to something like "I have an IQ in the single digits"

  46. somebody please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod that shit +1 funny

  47. Tom Ridge Don't Care by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    How much are you willing to bet that Tom Ridge's folks are keeping a keen eye on their team? Whatever they learn about rocketry must give the feds the willies

    I doubt it; first, the Homeland Security office is too busy figuring out their turf in the administration to actually do their job, and second, rockets are about the last thing they have to worry about terrorists using against the U.S.

    1. Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care by qubit64 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the rocket. Shoulder launched missiles are a possibility aren't they?

      --
      "Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
    2. Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

      sure they're a possibility, still much more remote than simple bombs or hijacked aircraft. They need weapons they can easily get from within the country or that they can easily bring into the country.

    3. Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care by antirename · · Score: 1

      Moot point. We've spent a couple of generations training the dogs to sniff for pot, not rocket fuel.

    4. Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care by qubit64 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It may be fairly simple to bring into the country. I don't know for sure, but if drug dealers can smuggle in ridiculous amounts of coke and so on in many different ways, someone may be able to smuggle in a shoulder propelled rocket.

      --
      "Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
    5. Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are your credentials ?

      I thought so ..

    6. Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care by Jonny+290 · · Score: 1

      If you've got the right hookups, there's really not that much of a difference. ;)

      --
      Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
  48. Open Source Rocket? by Max+the+Merciless · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is this just a Rocket or is it a GNU/Rocket?

    --
    * * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
    1. Re:Open Source Rocket? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of Open Source Rockets.

  49. The Scout Re:Solid, not liquid by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know how often it is used, but the U.S. does have a four-stage solid-fuled rocket capable of launching small payloads to orbit.

  50. Hypocrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    need I say more?

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

      Slashdot should do what fark does and change all offtopic jackass comments to something like "I have an IQ in the single digits"

  51. Rockets - Nevada - this weekend by taniwha · · Score: 2

    While Ky's launch will probably be pretty private (if only for safety reasons) - AeroPac is having our first launch of the year at the same spot (BlackRock ) - Northern Nevada this weekend.

    Sat and Sun mornings are the best time for launching (low winds) - the playa is BIG lots of room for recovery .... and camping

    1. Re:Rockets - Nevada - this weekend by zobier · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize that the weather was aware of weekdays.

      ;)

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    2. Re:Rockets - Nevada - this weekend by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2



      That looks like great fun, wish I could come. Not too many dry lake beds out East for that sort of thing, heh. Do you guys mind visitors just coming out for the weekend? I might try to do that for one of the weekends this summer if possible.

    3. Re:Rockets - Nevada - this weekend by taniwha · · Score: 2, Informative

      visitors are welcome, you come at your own risk of course, and we'll try and hit you up for a few bucks (because the BLM will make us pay for you, and we have to rent porta-potties). You can drive to the launch site in a street car and camp on the playa. We only do 3 launches a year so check the website for the right date.

    4. Re:Rockets - Nevada - this weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I didn't realize that the weather was aware of weekdays.

      Well known fact that it is here in England - it's sunny all week and rains all weekend :-(

  52. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just here to make this thread as deep as I can. Lets max /. why dont we?

  53. hmm, this is 7 deep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok cool

    1. Re:hmm, this is 7 deep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      42 is the answer

      HitchHiker's guide....

  54. Been Done (well, almost) by jheinen · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Reaction Research Society pretty much did just this back in 1996. They launched a solid-fueled rocket carrying an amateur television transmitter to a height of approximately 280,000 ft., which is about 46 nm.; just three miles short of the official "boundary". They weren't going for an official record, although I believe it was and remains the highest amateur launch to date.

    The rocket reached a maximum acceleration of 35 Gs, and attained mach 4.5 in 5 seconds. Their site has some good photos and video of the launch, both from the ground and from the rocket.

    -Jeff

    --
    -Vercingetorix
    "Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
  55. Re:Been Done (well, almost) !! What Great Fun !! by geekster_2000 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Space Propulsion Engine for Flying Saucer - New Physics

    Inventor of 3D volume holographic optical storage
    shopping his concept for Space Propulsion Engine
    using Propellantless Mass to US and other countries.

    for further look at biography background goto

    http://colossalstorage.net/colossal.htm

    He says he has looked at and researched the world's space agencies, aerospace
    companies, universities research, and corp. research and feels very confident
    knowing others technology while no one knows his.

    He is working in top secret and he says no physicist or scientist he has ever studied or researched had this approach and knows his concept will work to give near light speed travel thru Galaxy with 500K/Miles per Hour to start or 138 miles/sec. Nasa fastest time are 25,000 mile/hr or 3.9 miles/sec

    he says it is a mankind first concept !!

  56. Ky Michealson (and others) by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Informative
    Some insight:

    I'm a rocketry hobbyist. I fly up to H power models. Not very ambitious, but I'm part of the rocket nerd community.

    Ky is a real guy. A competent fellow who, while sometimes a bit of a self-promoter, is very competent and not a nut-job dreamer. Ky and his wife are regulars at HP and experimental rocketry launches. They sell a line of heavy-duty parachutes and other recovery gear.

    I have full confidence in Ky and his team.

    As for those other guys:

    The Oregon RocketGuy strikes me as an earnest, overconfident not-quite-a-nut. I think he's backed off from his "first flight will have me in it, tests cost too much!", which is a good thing for all involved. I hope he can pull it off.

    The British X-prize hopeful, Bennet -- I forget his first name -- is a pretentious con-artist. The rockets he launches are nothing special. You can see dozens like it at a typical LDRS event. He claims that these are test flights, to test recovery gear etc., but they're really just large model rocket launches. Watching the videos of him at work is embarassing.

    Example: A year or two back, one of the cable channels had a segment on one of his test launches. After setting up the rocket on the beach, he and a helper walked to their launch bunker (a hole in the sand), spooling out the launch leads as they went. It turned out that the leads were too short. They couldn't reach the foxhole. Duh?

    When the time for launch came, we see Bennet instruct his helper on how to press the launch button on the second launch controller, and to be sure to do so at exactly the same time he pressed the button on his controller.

    SECOND launch controller? Because the model had multiple motors, right? But model rocketeers with any experience know how to hook up multiple igniters in parallel, eliminating the nasty problem of buttons pushed out of synch.

    1. Re:Ky Michealson (and others) by taniwha · · Score: 1

      gee I think you got each of them pegged exactly as I had (even Ky)

    2. Re:Ky Michealson (and others) by RocketGeek · · Score: 1
      I'd say you've got your description very accurately indeed.

      As one of those in the UK who has suffered at the results of Bennett's antics, it still amazes me that people actually fall for some of his comments. Having met him, I know exactly what he is like, however, because he has a tendency to try and sue people in the UK, I'll not share my opinions of the man. I think you can guess what I think though :-)

      As you say, they're just large high power model rockets, with clusters of motors (a recent one used a cluster of Aerotech M1939's I believe). Even his largest is still smaller than the largest HPR vehicles launched in the U.S. (such as Project 463).

      The good thing is though, people are beginning to wise up to him now though.

      We live in hope...

    3. Re:Ky Michealson (and others) by RocketGeek · · Score: 2, Informative
      Your comments are very accurate (well certainly about Bennett).

      I was at Ky's launch a few years back, and the guy is very professional. He's very determined, and I have no doubt he will get a vehicle to space.

      As for Bennett, as one of the UK rocketeers who has suffered at the hands of Bennett (and had the misfortune to meet him), I'd say your comments are, if anything, in my opinion, too kind to him. He flies large, very nicely finished high power model rockets. Period. He may claim all sorts of things, but given that a recent launch of his was on a cluster of M1939's when he was making all sorts of wild claims, then it sort of puts it into perspective. His largest vehicle isn't even as large as the some of the larger HPR vehicles such as the U.S. Project 463 - which for someone who seems to attach so much importance to size of his rockets, seems to be a bit amiss :-) Most UK rocketeers are wary of saying too much about him, because he has been known to try to sue people who say things he doesn't like in the UK.

      As you say, if he really was what he claims, why is he using the launch controllers he uses ? You have to feel sorry for those who follow him, since they probably have no idea of the accuracy of what he claims.

      Eventually, in my opinion, the truth will catch up with him. People are already starting to wise up to him in the UK as this article shows.

  57. Balloons are still better by dankjones · · Score: 1

    Scientific balloons have attained heights of 52 kilometers (32.3 miles) and carried payloads of up to 3,600 kilograms

    http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:34Avny4awzE C: www.sciam.com/1999/1199issue/1199smith.html+balloo n+OR+balloons+altitude+space+miles+OR+kilometers&h l=en&ie=UTF-8

    1. Re:Balloons are still better by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 2

      Pity they aren't launching from such a balloon -
      they'd get another 50 klicks higher at least.

      -- this is not a .sig

    2. Re:Balloons are still better by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Actually, with slightly less gravity and much less air resistance to deal with, possibly considerably more.

      I've always wondered why balloons aren't used as first stages of launch vehicles, considering how much fuel a typical rocket uses just getting to the altitude to which a balloon could float. You'd also avoid a lot of weather-related launch delays. I suppose the biggest problem would be that the drifting balloon makes getting to a precise place in orbit mode difficult?

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    3. Re:Balloons are still better by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2

      I've always wondered why balloons aren't used as first stages of launch vehicles, considering how much fuel a typical rocket uses just getting to the altitude to which a balloon could float. You'd also avoid a lot of weather-related launch delays. I suppose the biggest problem would be that the drifting balloon makes getting to a precise place in orbit mode difficult?

      I would imagine that it's also a fairly difficult trick to fire upward from a platform suspended under a balloon without hitting it.

      --
      Why?
  58. re: amateur rocketry by herrd0kt0r · · Score: 5, Funny

    thanks for your rocketry story! i remember building model rockets when i was younger, and dealing with all sorts of details that went into the launch. my younger brother was into it, too, and i think some of these details were a little too much to bother with.

    see, we were super competitive. i remember building a C power rocket one afternoon. my siblings and i were very competitive. the aforementioned brother HAD to build a rocket, too.

    of course, he, being the youngest brother, ended up getting shafted in the dough-for-fun-fund. he wound up scrounging enough money to buy the Mosquito, a rocket that used A (AA? AAA? what's the smallest rocket?), and was no taller than a pencil.

    launch time was nearing for me, so he set to work at a feverish pace. he soon came out with this hideously spray-painted, still-wet and dripping with paint yellow and black rocket that looked uber pizacrap.

    we launched it in front of our house in the suburbs. neighborhood kids came out to watch. he threaded the rocket onto the launching pad, connected the fuse up, and started the countdown.

    3...
    2...
    1...
    FWOOOOOOOSH!

    sucker flew straight! straight up REAL FAST! all these kids were ooohing and ahhing. even the folks across the street were impressed! the rocket didn't get too high-- it was still very visible when it began to slow down and arc downward.

    there's something terribly graceful about a rocket gliding in the air-- it was beautiful. not a peep was heard in the crowd.

    so heavenly, so peaceful! we knew that any moment now, the tiny secondary charge would gently pop the nosecone off and unfurl the streamer which would let it fall gently to the ground...

    so graceful!

    then BOOM! the rocket BLASTED toward the earth at something akin to warp 10. kids were screaming and tried to run away, but it was just too fast! it impaled itself into the ground, several inches deep, still smoking, and then caught fire.

    kids were crying. parents were yelling. we began to try to figure out what happened. he glued the nosecone, which is supposed to pop off, into place.

    that secondary charge had nowhere to go but out the back of the rocket. and when the back of the rocket is facing up, the rocket's gonna go down. fast.

    THE MORAL OF THE STORY:

    NEVER GLUE THE NOSECONE IN PLACE.
    also, WET SPRAYPAINT IS A FIRE HAZARD.

  59. *why* *why* *WHY*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHY WHY WHY *OH GOD WHY* are people wasting time and energy with home made rockets? I'm beginning to think there's some sort of psychological problem involving phalluses or something!

    balloons

    Because balloons don't have the gee-whiz gollee Mr. Science Nerd aura of ubergeekness about them?

    Look, if a man in 1960 floated to 102000ft and JUMPED off his capsule and broke the sound barrier WITH HIS BODY and parachuted to safety, why not do it again?

    Use a monster balloon. Lift a small manned rocket to whatever altitude you need, while the balloon is still pulling you up, fire your rocket through the balloon.

    Alright MOC's, fire away!

    1. Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? by taniwha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you mean like these guys who fly from (roughly) the same spot?

    2. Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooohhhh... Now *that's* nice!

      This is the way to go, IMHO.

    3. Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? by maroberts · · Score: 2

      Two Words: Lifting capacity

      Most balloons do not have much of a payload and I have a suspicion that getting a decent sized payload up high requires a really really big balloon.

      Any physicists/aeronauticists out there to confirm this?

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    4. Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? by jkujawa · · Score: 2

      The problem is that, as a balloon rises, the force pushing it up decreases. As the density of the gas inside the balloon approaches the density of the air outside of the balloon, the forces of gravity and reach equilibrium.

      Any balloon is going to have an absolute limit as to how high it can go.

    5. Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Paradox:
      Does this mean that if you have a vacuum in a balloon it will have no problem going really high?

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    6. Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? by jkujawa · · Score: 2

      If you could build a balloon that was strong enough to contain a vacuum without collapsing, yet having a large enough volume to reduce the total density to less than air, vacuum would be the ideal contents of a baloon.

      But what you're doing is exchanging additional structural elements for the the weight of the gas, so you're really getting nothing. In addition, it would be impractical to build a vaccuum chamber that would resist crushing close to the ground. Your balloon would have to be made out of steel.

  60. Re:Dangerous... by antirename · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Go fuck yourself. Troll.

  61. Re:Better than NASA I hope by zyglow · · Score: 1

    Let the government run the space program? These are the same people that tell us how our lives should be morally, and do the exact opposite. Granted, something should be done to control contractors besides ISO and NADCAP standards, but the government shouldn't be it.

    I hope these chaps are successful in getting their rocket up there. We'll be one baby step closer to opening the space market to the private sector.

    --
    http://www.forum-addicts.com
  62. Nah, it just takes time for people to get over... by Art+Popp · · Score: 1

    their Nintendos. The instant satisfaction factor of playing Max Payne has not yet lost it's gloss; but it will. Once you've shot every imaginable bad guy, with every imaginable weapon while falling through fluidic space backwards and tumbling... it will get old and the rewards of the longer term pursuits will again seem worthy of the efforts. Computers have been an adventure for a couple decades now, but soon, for most, they'll just be tools again, about as exciting as screwdriver design.

    Thankfully some will retain their interest after the glam is gone, Blessed be the inventers of Torx.

  63. Definition of Space by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 1

    Nobody really thought that outer space started at fifty miles of altitude -- sixty or seventy five miles up was the start of real space. Then the US developed spy satellites that could dip down to about 60 miles to get a better look and refused to agree to any treaties that wouldn't allow that. So, space is not what it used to be.

  64. I curse the US weight & measurement system by forged · · Score: 1
    If everybody was using Metrics, they wouldn't have used that many parenthesis making it easier to read!

    So I multiply by 4, add 9, divide by 11 .... 8=)

    1. Re:I curse the US weight & measurement system by KiwiEngineer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      that would require admitting that the rest of the world might have been on to a good thing after all for the last - oh - fify or so years though. Can't see the yanks ever admitting that

      --
      Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
  65. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lazy peoples like me use the metric system because the speed of light is 300000000 m/s or thereabouts, but in crappy imperialistic system is 186000003.1415926535897932384626 feet per second. Besides, feet per second sound like it measure what shark eat beyond its first helping.

  66. HOODY HOO! by Vidmaster_Steve · · Score: 1

    Consider my ass out there this weekend! I'll see if I can get our fledgling Planetary Society chapter to haul their lazy, sluglike posteriors out there.

    --
    Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
  67. Re: amateur rocketry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mosquito is a featherweight-recovery type rocket. It's so light that it just floats back to the ground after the ejection charge kicks the spent engine out of the body of the rocket. It's supposed to have its nose cone glued on. There is no streamer to pop out. Most likely the engine was glued into the body by the wet paint, thus the explosion. The typical engine used in the Mosquito is a 1/2 AT. The 'T' indicates that it's a mini-engine.

  68. Units! by AJWM · · Score: 3, Informative

    62 nautical miles (114 kilometers)

    Um, no. Actually 62 miles is just a shade under 100 km. 100 km would be about 62.14 miles. And this significance of this is... (wait for it)

    (12 miles higher than the 50-mile altitude largely regarded as the boundary of space)

    Um, no. The 50 mile altitude is what the USAF awarded astronaut wings for to X-15 pilots who exceeded it, and may even be the US legal definition of where space begins, but it's 100 km (ah!) that is the boundary of space as far as the International Aeronautical Federation is concerned.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Units! by AJWM · · Score: 2

      Argh, even when you preview you miss things.

      While 62 standard miles is about 100 km, the original post said 62 nautical miles. However, the rest of the post stands, and I wonder if "nautical" was a mistake.

      (Stupid imperial measurement system....)

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not likely, 62nm works out to 114.8km according to:
      http://hemsidor.torget.se/users/b/bohjohan/co nvert / onv_e.htm
      (note the space in url)
      ---
      (ha ha)
      http://www.moonmovie.com/

    3. Re:Units! by AJWM · · Score: 1

      How is this "insightful" when I corrected that about ten hours before AC posted?

      Oh, and the URL is wrong. No legal URL has spaces, whatever MSIE thinks. s/ /%20/ to fix. But why use that when units(1) is standard with Unix and Linux?

      $ units
      1378 units, 57 prefixes

      You have: 62 nauticalmiles
      You want: km
      * 114.824

      --
      -- Alastair
    4. Re:Units! by alienmole · · Score: 2
      How is this "insightful" when I corrected that about ten hours before AC posted?

      You didn't correct it, you wondered whether "nautical" was a mistake. The AC pointed out that it probably wasn't, and why not. Basically, this whole thread is pointless, and you shouldn't be whining about moderation when you screwed up.

    5. Re:Units! by chasec · · Score: 1

      Actually 62 miles is just a shade under 100 km. 100 km would be about 62.14 miles.

      62 miles is under 100km, yes. But the atricle said 62 nautical miles, which are longer than the ordinary mile. A nautical mile is about 1.15 miles, so 114 km sounds about right here.

    6. Re:Units! by AJWM · · Score: 1

      This is probably a dead thread, but what the hell...

      "Nautical" is a mistake. The original article refers to "50 miles" as the boundary of space -- a related graphic labels that as "50 nautical miles".

      That's plain wrong. In the X-15 program, flight above 264,000 feet qualified the (USAF) pilot for astronaut wings. This is 50 statute miles (do the math). This is the figure I alluded to in my original post. 62 statute miles is also approximately 100 km, which is the internationally recognized boundary of space.

      The article's author messed up, perhaps mislead by a bogus graphic from the rocket folks, either way they didn't check. The "114 km" figure comes from blindly converting the bogus 62 "nautical" miles. The "insightful" follow-up to my post was anything but because the dummy clearly exhibited a total lack of insight by not understanding that.

      --
      -- Alastair
    7. Re:Units! by alienmole · · Score: 1
      You're right, it's a dead thread. :)

      I agree there are screwups within screwups here. In fact one of the Rocketman graphics for the Sep 2001 shot (which has apparently morphed into the 2002 shot) showed the apogee as 60nm. So maybe someone converted 60nm as statute miles, came up short of 100km, and decided to increase the number, reaching the 62 figure, which was subsequently converted as nm to reach 114km? (Shades of NASA's Mars shot).

      But the point, to me, was that the AC explained where the 114km came from, whether or not the article or the graphics were correct. With such confused source material, anything that clarifies the situation is at least informative...

    8. Re:Units! by AJWM · · Score: 2

      Okay, I'll buy "informative", barely :)

      --
      -- Alastair
  69. Active guidance? by po8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ky Michaelson and his team are for real, and it will be interesting to see if they make it work: our group will be out at Black Rock cheering them on.

    That said, as far as I know, this rocket lacks what is known in the trade as "active guidance": i.e., it cannot steer itself. This leads to two big problems. First, it is very hard to build a rocket that will go up very straight to 100km. Large fins are required for the upper atmosphere, but they cause tremendous drag near the ground. (Also, BTW, the potential landing radius of the debris in the event of failure of the airframe or parachutes is huge: part of why the FAA is so nervous about the whole thing.)

    Second, even if the rocket does make it "into space", it is essentially impossible to make it into orbit. To orbit something, you need to go up and then sideways: this requires steering.

    Imagine putting a car out on a salt flat, tying the wheels down, aiming it north, and letting it travel for 50 miles. It would probably end up somewhere north of where it started. More than that, it would be difficult to say. This rocket is aimed 50 miles up. With luck, it will end up falling from above us somewhere. More than that...

  70. Ignore this post. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Erasing screwed up moderation selection.

  71. Nope! :) MARS are a young and vibrant UK group! by NeoTron · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are most certainly NOT a dying breed :) Have a look at our group : http://www.mars.org.uk , we are a group of young professionals who have launched at Black Rock before, using a rocket motor ordered from the VERY cool and capable Ky Michaelson - he's a dude... Regards.

    1. Re:Nope! :) MARS are a young and vibrant UK group! by paul_cairney · · Score: 1

      I havent seen any of the MARS launches since IRW 98 in sunny Largs but have been eagerly following their progress.

      You should check our Demios 2, an 18ft tall scratch built rocket powered by a N20/PTFE Hybred rocket motor designed and built by the mars crew.

      Good luck to Ben, Antony and the rest of the crew!!

  72. Nautical Miles != Standard Miles by LuYu · · Score: 3, Informative

    It appears that there is a mistake in this article. The mile (mi) nautical mile (nmi) seem to be treated as the same distance. However, one mile is 5280 feet, and one nautical mile is 6076.1 feet by this definition, or 6080.27 feet in the definition given in GDict. This means that the estimated altitude of the rocket will be approximately 71.35 standard miles (mi) or 71.40 standard miles (mi) (respectively).

    It also appears according to this NASA page that 50 miles is the altitude one has to achieve to be called an astronaut in the USA. However, the atmosphere's friction boundary is 75.76 miles, according to the same page. So the rocket will be approximately 4.41 to 4.36 miles short of the friction boundary, but any lifeforms (bacteria, etc.) that survive the journey will be astronauts in the USA.

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
  73. Oops! Motor from Frank Kosdon, NOT Ky!! by NeoTron · · Score: 2

    Yes, I'm an idiot :P ... D'oh!

    The motor we bought was from Kosdon - and he's a dude, too.

    Good luck to Ky's group anyway :)

    1. Re:Oops! Motor from Frank Kosdon, NOT Ky!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god people like you have control over virtual weapons of mass destuction.

  74. Re:First Post as an Adult! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    yeah you can have sex, havea baby, get married, get addicted to cigerrettes, and watch violence, but you cant celebrate anything with a drink. what gives?

  75. Not Really Space by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 2

    62 nautical miles (114 kilometers) in the atmosphere (12 miles higher than the 50-mile altitude largely regarded as the boundary of space). (MSN version here)"

    62 miles high is not space it does not even achieve a stable orbit never mind escape velocity. In my book this is not space.

    1. Re:Not Really Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your book? I did a search on Amazon for Martin Spamer but couldn't find anything apparently appropriate.

    2. Re:Not Really Space by nihilvt · · Score: 1

      None of the satellites currently in orbit achieved escape velocity (about 15 miles per second).

  76. Junk? by sckeener · · Score: 2

    I certainly hope they succeed. I was wondering what constitutes space junk? If the rocket does cross the boundry, how long until it comes down?

    --
    "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    1. Re:Junk? by NeoTron · · Score: 2

      It'll come down very soon after apogee (the point where gravity/friction slows it to a stop and it "hovers" for a brief moment).

      Remember - there is a difference between launching a rocket into space, and launching into orbit. If you wish to go into orbit, you'll need much, much, MUCH more power than this space shot attempt will produce :)

      Regards.

  77. Re:Better than NASA I hope by The+G · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I have no idea how the 5280' mile got its length.

    Blame the Romans. Lacking the technology to measure minutes of arc like us modern-types, they had to make do with low-tech measurements like "one thousand paces."
    --G

  78. Re: amateur rocketry by Zerelli · · Score: 0

    When I built a mosquito it used a AAA I am pretty sure. It was many years ago. Anyway, we had a similar story, only ours was assemled and allowed to dry for a proper period. When it was laucnhed it also went well up to the point where the rocket blew up. We found the pieces, it had managed to dislodge the fins and nose cone. It was the only launch we ever had go badly.

  79. I bet you work for NASA by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

    Scared of losing your billions in funding?

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  80. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Small correcton. NASA wanted to launch, the contractor did not. NASA made the call. The guys from the manufaturer did not watch the launch.

  81. Re:Dangerous... by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

    I'm not suggesting the people in the article are terrorists, but neither was the husband and wife team that invented the airplane.

    Who was the wife, Wilbur or Orville?

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  82. Re: amateur rocketry by ...+James+... · · Score: 1

    err.... I think you're supposed to glue the nosecone on the mosquito. If I remember correctly, it was light enough to just tumble down. I think you are supposed to put a hole in the tube to vent the ejection charge gasses (or maybe use a motor that doesn't have an ejection charge?)

  83. Re: amateur rocketry by Anthracene · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you're right, you were supposed to glue the nose cone of the Mosquito on. No hole in the tube, though, and no special motor: the ejection charge was supposed to blast the remains of the motor out of the rocket so the rocket would tumble down (the real trick was finding the damn thing).

    Motors without ejection charges are mostly meant for use as the non-final stages of multi-stage rockets, IIRC.

  84. 46 nano-meters would be a short launch. by Paul+the+Bold · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Damn, I hate the english system of units.

    When I first read your post, I was confused as to why somebody would shoot a rocket 46 nano-meters. Then I noticed that 280,000 ft. is not 46 nm, so I thought maybe you meant km, but that would be 85 km. Then I figured it out: nautical miles. I did a google search, and found that n.m. is the correct abbreviation for nautical miles. I hate the english system.

    Only the english system of units would have so many different measurements of length. Stupid footlongs, chains, fathoms, feet, inches, miles, and nautical miles. I hate it that we still use those units in this country.

    To repeat, I hate the english system of measurement.

    I'm off my soapbox for now.

    1. Re:46 nano-meters would be a short launch. by dillon_rinker · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damn, I hate the english system of units.

      What do the English have to do with this? They use metric. =)

    2. Re:46 nano-meters would be a short launch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On the other hand, the Imperial system sometimes provides fortuitous units: the next time you time something crawling along at 1 cm/sec, don't forget that that is almost exactly 1 furlong per fortnight in Imperial.

      And how about the speed of light? It's a convenient two trillion leagues per annum.

      PS: Those are american trillions, please note. If you wanted to be more traditional aboutit it would be two english billion leagues per annum. Where's NASA when you need them?

    3. Re:46 nano-meters would be a short launch. by skyhawker · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think you can blame the English or the Americans on nautical miles. Nautical miles are based on the earth's geometry and are used to make sea and air navigation convenient. A nautical mile is basically the distance along a meridian (line of longitude) between two points separated by one minute of arc in latitude. Consequently, it's really easy to measure distances on a chart that shows latitude and longitude lines. The earth's circumference is basically 21600 (360 x 60) nm.

      --

      The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
      -- Scotty.
  85. Re:Been Done (well, almost) !! What Great Fun !! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    I'm taking the don'ts.

  86. The Mean Machine.....no, make that the Mini-MM by pmanheier · · Score: 1

    Maybe in 20 years we'll all be flying to space with our own rockets...

    ...I can remember getting into small rockets like those from Estes, particularly one called the Mean Machine. Towering six feet into the air - far above my jr. high head at the time - painted all black with a shiny nose cone. It was too big for the starter launch rod we had, so one of us had to hold the thing up til a split second before launch.

    I volunteered to watch 100 yards away by the tennis courts at the park.

    The damn thing tipped over on ignition and screamed past my head -- distace to my skull a mere 5 feet. It hit the fences south of me and compacted.

    We rebuilt by cutting off the 4.5 feet of crushed toilet paper roll that made up our little rocket. The remainder was a much safer, though less satisfying, version we called the Mini-Mean Machine.

    A toast to solid-state engines and all the money invested in childhood spaceman dreams...

  87. Re: amateur rocketry by grappler · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have a similar story

    I won an essay contest in 5th grade and got to go to Space Camp. One of the days there we built estes rockets - I think we used the Payloader, because there was a clear tube below the nosecone. We found some lucky insects and shot them off.

    One girl's rocket wouldn't start. After several failed launches, the instructor unhooked it and tried to take the engine out. She couldn't. These rockets had a hook assembly in the bottom and had been hastily put together. This one had the hook glued in place and unable to move, keeping the engine from sliding out. The instructor had no problem pushing it farther in though. So she just shoved in a new engine.

    It launched successfully on that windless day, everybody clapped, and a few seconds elapsed. These engines were single stage engines - some engines are made without a delay so they can ignite another stage while a lower stage separates. In this case, the delay allowed the rocket to point downward before the "second stage" was ignited. The old engine that had had problems was now sending the rocket straight at us. We yelled and ran, and the rocket made touchdown right where we had been standing, the slender nose cone burying itself about 6 inches into the soft dirt and the engine still burning, the body tube twisted and blackened, unraveling about its sprial seam.

    A few of us ran back toward the rocket to get a look at it. And right as somebody was pulling it out of the ground, that's when the _second_ ejection charge went off...

    :-)

    --
    Vidi, Vici, Veni
  88. Re: amateur rocketry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    THE MORAL OF THE STORY:

    NEVER GLUE THE NOSECONE IN PLACE.
    also, WET SPRAYPAINT IS A FIRE HAZARD.

    I did this on purpose once, and though dangerous, it was a lot of fun. ;)

  89. Slashdot Poll: Favourite Rocket Payload ? by maroberts · · Score: 2, Funny
    • Jack Valenti
    • John Ashcroft
    • Bill Gates
    • George Bush
    • Cowboyneal exceeds payload limits, so he's not on this poll option
    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Slashdot Poll: Favourite Rocket Payload ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the "all of the above" option.

  90. Re:Solid restart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the book Polaris, the Polaris missile program solved the problem of controlling solid rockets a long time ago, including shutdown with restart.

  91. Re: amateur rocketry by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    The Mosquito was actually my favorite because it was light, the engines were cheap, and you didn't have to worry about getting stuck in a tree (empty field with lone tree == gravitational vortex?). It did become mildly dangerous when the engine failed to eject. It's too bad the newer ones have a hollow plastic nose cone instead of the balsa on the originals.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  92. Re:Nah, it just takes time for people to get over. by Theom · · Score: 0

    "Computers have been an adventure for a couple decades now, but soon, for most, they'll just be tools again, about as exciting as screwdriver design." Please show me a screewdriver that can do half as much as a computer.

    --

    mp3: l33t term for empty.
  93. I know this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Ky is a really nice guy. He has had his share
    of success, and failures, in personal life and
    rockets. Jodi, is really nice also. Pretty down to earth really, but has the showman flair.

    Ky was an expert on the rocket episode of junkyard wars, and still has the ostrich egg that won at his house. His house is a space museum, really neat collection of stuff, both US and Russian.

    His website

    Ky, for being in his 60's, is amazing. He doesn't mind watching TV, but he sure gets a lot done. That street luge, I saw it before it
    was done, and it just went together. He said he was gonna ride it!

    Maybe I ought to volunteer to kee his web site updated.

  94. Re: amateur rocketry by Toshito · · Score: 1

    I also made a very bad rocket when I was young. The nosecone was glued in place, but I was smart enough to provide a side door for the parachute...

    But, I only had a C power thing to put into that big (2 feets) rocket.

    At the moment the rocket began to lift off, I knew there was something wrong, rockets are not supposed to accelerate this slow...

    The rocket went slowly about 50 feet in the air, then it began to arc and was now heading for the earth, toward my neighbour's house.

    Then the thrust endend (thankfully!), and the rocket dropped like a stone. The second charge blew up a part of it, and it catched fire.

    I think that's why I don't work at NASA now...

    But it was fun!!!

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel
  95. Re: amateur rocketry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    We used to take the "C" or "D" engines and strap them to homemade lego dragsters. From much experimentation and many demolished legos, we were finally able to make it go straight. Man, did those things go fast! Phase II (live gerbil driver) was scrapped due to maternal intervention

  96. bad designs by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

    I remember a few horrible rocket designs. One was the "Enterprise", which I'd gotten as a gift. It was flimsy just sitting on my desk, I knew there was no way it was going to fly. But I tried anyway, I was young and felt that Estes wouldn't build something that wouldn't fly. The thing completely disintegrated on launch. I never found the main body (where the rocket engine and chute were located), but the saucer section and engine nacelles (those two things hanging off the back) were scattered about the launch site.

    Another was the Pershing Missile. Huge rocket, like three feet tall, six inches in diamter. The nose cone must have weighted at least two pounds. I think it used a single C engine, which made no sense but I figured if that's how they designed it, I'd give it a try. Yeah, it launched, about 15 feet in the air and came plummeting back down. The nose cone never separated; not that it would have helped since it was too low for a parachute, but the weight of the nose cone crushed the body. Oh well, I guess some rockets were designed simply to build and display. I had to build a special launch pad too, since the flimsy 3-legged one kept tipping over.

    Speaking of tipping over, we forgot to tighten the wingnut later (I think it got partially stripped when I put the Pershing on it), and just as my friend was launching his Mosquito, the rod slipped. The Mosquito fired about 10 degrees above vertical. Now, that was a sight! The mosquito screaming across the field an slamming into a woodshed about 150 yards away.

    Another carzy model was the "Drifter". It came with a huge parachute, like 36" for a small rocket; I was too young to figure out what was going to happen. That thing drifted at least a mile and a half as we chased it down on our bikes. We lost sight of it, and didn't find it until a week later, hung up in a tree.

    I doubt anyone back in my hometown does it anymore; the burbs have grown more crowded, the people are more paranoid, and kids more apt to stay inside. It's a shame, because I have some great memories from my rocketeering days.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  97. Interesting but... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

    I don't have a warm a fuzzy feeling about having armatures trying to lob heavy objects into space. If you think about it, it is really crazy.

    If the guidance goes awry they could kill someone.

    "Let's pack a big cylinder with rocket fuel and light it."

    "OK, but first pass me another beer."

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  98. Re:Dangerous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he meant Pierre and Marie Curie.

  99. Re:Better than NASA I hope by rob-fu · · Score: 1

    Yes, NASA wanted to launch, but so did the Thiokol management. It was the Thiokol engineers that didn't want them to launch. (or so i thought...)

  100. by the way, kuro5hin raised 37,000 dollars by turm5ric · · Score: 1

    that is stuff that matters

  101. first TV "reception" in space was amateur by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 1

    Hey. Do not knock the little guys. Amature radio proved it mettle (no relation) by providing the very first TV reception in space while in orbit. You think not? Just ask NASA. Sure, they send down the clips. But, the first time they "received" video via TV, it was on the amateur bands. Of course, anyone who knows anything about the astronauts knows that most of them are into amateur radio with some of the top permissions available. Just for the record.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  102. And then their's solid-liquid hybrid. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reason [liquid fuel is used in most well-developed space launch systems] is simple: solid fuel allows no control over the burn. You can't change thrust except in predetermined ways, you can't shut it down, you can't restart it. That's why liquid fuel is necessary for all but the simplest applications.

    There's an alternative: Solid/liquid hybrids, such as AMROC (AMerican ROcket Corporation) tried to commercialize.

    Basic idea is you use one part (typically the fuel) as a solid, the other part (typically the oxidizer) as a liquid.

    You only need to throttle ONE of the two parts to get the throttling advantage if you chose to throttle the oxidizer (which results in a lowered flame) rather than the fuel (which results in a lean and unstable flame). Meanwhile, a fuel-only solid fuel is literally safe as houses.

    With only one part liquid you have only one tank, one set of valves, one pump-or-tank-pressurizer, and no problems with balancing the fuel flows of the two parts.

    LOX is reasonably easy to make and handle, only moderately dangerous, while LH2 is extremely difficult and dangerous to make and handle. LOX is dense while LH2 is very light - much less dense than an equivalent amount of hydrogen bound into a compound (such as a hydrocarbon). So you're way ahead to use a LOX/solid hydrocarbon hybrid.

    AMROC used LOX and synthetic rubber. The fuel part was 'way stable - they handed out paperweights made of it for fund-raising trinkets and bounced them off the desks of bureaucrats who wanted them to get explosives licences for their fuel facility. (I've still got one around here somewhere.) One of the advantages of this combo was that it was flat-out impossible to get it to explode. (The worst you could do is make it burn extra hot.)

    AMROC got pretty far along before they folded. The end came after their primary evangalest/fundraiser died in an auto accident. (I forget his name just now. But he was the same guy who talked the city of Chicago to let the people making the move The Blues Brothers to air-drop an automobile over the city.)

    They had already done their engine tests and had their first suborbital launch ready to go at a rented pad at Vandenberg. They went ahead with the test and had what was probably the worst possible engine failure: After lighting the LOX valve stuck at 10% open - too low to get off the pad, too high to put out the fire. So the rocket sat there burning up, and eventually flame-damaged part of the launch tower. They didn't have enough funding for a second try, and without their primary fundraiser they folded.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  103. Re: amateur rocketry by CargoCultCoder · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not being too bright (still), I once launched an Erector Set. Seriously. It was actually supposed to be a rocket motor test stand (forget why I needed *that*), but it had one design flaw. Though the stand was held down by one of those big 6v lantern batteries, the motor thrust was directed skyward, instead of towards the ground.

    And yes, this thing was built from a 70's vintage erector set: potmetal, bolts and nuts.

    When the day came, I set this thing up in the back woods. I was 14 or so, so mom was in attendance. Slipped in a nice C-motor, wired it up, stood back, and flipped the switch.

    The battery flew a good six feet. The stand -- did I mention it was an erector set? -- shot straight up about 5 feet, tipped over 90 degrees or so and began swirling like a dervish through the woods, bouncing off tree trunks, hurtling sidewards at myself and then my mom (both of us running for our lives at this point), spewing smoke and exhaust every which way, before the motor finally burned out and the thing crashed down in a heap in the grass, about 15 feet from where it started.

    We approached it gingerly, coming up to it just in time for one last convulsive, metallic lurch as the ejection charge fired.

    Mom, she just looked at me grimly and said "You're not trying that again." Me, I did not become an engineer of any description.

  104. Re:Better than NASA I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I figured as much, I think the funniest measure is an acre. It was the amount of land one man could plow in a day. What if you had a fast team of oxen?

  105. why solid, and not liquid? by vortexau · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering why they've gone back to the old technology of Solid Fuel rocketry when 58 years ago Liquid Fuel rocketry was getting quite successful with the 'A-4'?

    .

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  106. SpaceDev bought them by ZigMonty · · Score: 2

    AMROC was bought by SpaceDev and they are continuing the work.

  107. Really Space by alienmole · · Score: 2
    100 km (approx 62 miles) is the official definition of the beginning of space defined by the International Aeronautical Federation, as well as many other bodies, including the Internation Astronautical Federation.

    The U.S. awards astronaut status to anyone who flies above 50 miles. At 50 miles, atmospheric density is one-thousandth that at sea level. You'd die instantly if you stepped outside at that altitude.

    At 100km, the atmospheric density is near-vacuum, and rudders and wings on an aircraft will not work - no aerodynamic control is possible. If you step outside your vehicle, you will explosively decompress.

  108. [OT] sig attribution by alienmole · · Score: 1
    The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist
    -- Verbal Kint, The Usual Suspects

    This quote is an old cliche, which dates back at least to Baudelaire's 1864 short story, The Generous Gambler. The line (translated from the French) goes something like "the Devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist".

    1. Re:[OT] sig attribution by maroberts · · Score: 1

      You're probably correct, but in this case it's a particulaly appropriate quote in the film. If you have seen it you know what I mean.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon