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)"

Comments

Re:Rocket Science

[Oily Tuna]

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

More Information ...

[ProfMoriarty]

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 ... :)

Re:Better than NASA I hope

[nelsonal]

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.

Re:Solid, not liquid

[RedWizzard]

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.

Been Done (well, almost)

[jheinen]

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

Ky Michealson (and others)

[StefanJ]

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.

Re:Ky Michealson (and others)

[RocketGeek]

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.

Re:Solid, not liquid

[teaserX]

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.

Re:Rockets - Nevada - this weekend

[taniwha]

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.

Units!

[AJWM]

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.

Active guidance?

[po8]

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...

Nope! :) MARS are a young and vibrant UK group!

[NeoTron]

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.

Nautical Miles != Standard Miles

[LuYu]

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.

Re:46 nano-meters would be a short launch.

[skyhawker]

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.