Slashdot Mirror
Brian Walker (aka Rocket Guy) Fires Back
1) Exotic Fuels
by cybrpnk2
Amateur rockets don't get to space or orbit because they're generally limited to low specific impulse solid fuels. Is there much of a gain in specific impulse to be obtained by further research into hybrid (ie, plastic/nitrous oxide) propellants? How about exotic chemicals (buckyballs, multi-atomic nitrogen, fluorine for example) - any route for amateur utilization of these?
Brian Walker / Rocket Guy: I am using 90% H2o2 because using it as a monopropellant is the safest method of propulsion for my particular rocket. There is no chance of a catastrophic explosion or fire. This alone eliminates about one half of all standard problems that are encountered for any rocket flight.
2) operational testing?
by Nehemiah S
What kind of testing have you done for your design(s)? Wind tunnel tests, computational fluid dynamics, flying scale models, etc? I've also noticed that your design has changed considerably since the first time you were featured on Slashdot, and as an aerospace engineer myself it would be interesting to know what your design criteria were and how you arrived at them.
RG: My design has changed because I do not profess to be an aeronautical engineer of any sort, and as I have proceeded, I have allowed myself to make the necessary changes resulting in a better design. A number of people have a called me on several design concerns, and I listened. As for wind tunnel tests and the like, no. The rocket is near perfect in its shape, and for what I require it to do (go up and down in a relatively stable manner), it is fine.
3) Cowboy hat?
by micromoog
In case something goes wrong, are you planning to take with you a large ten-gallon cowboy hat to wave around on reentry?
RG: No, I'll be wearing a space suit, and a cowboy hat would not be a wise fashion accessory.
4) What about John Carmack's project?
by tswinzig
Have you discussed rocketry with John Carmack and his friends at Armadillo Aerospace? They plan to eventually fly a manned rocket as well.
RG: Met John in Arizona back in April. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for him. We are opposites -- he is very methodical and is a computer genius. I am not. Between my Dyslexia and ADHD, it was a miracle that I made it through school at all. I simply don't have the same mental drive as Mr. Carmack does, so I do things the way that work best for me, and 18 licensed toys have served me well.
5) Funding vs technology
by Andy_R
How much of your project requires technological innovation on your part, and how much is just a question of raising funding to duplicate existing technology that governments have already researched?
RG: 90% of what I am doing is the result of simple refinement from what has been done, time and again, over the past 50 years or so. Remember, I am not trying to orbit the earth. It is a simple elevator ride for 20 minutes.
6) Rocket Industry Efficiency
by Local Loop
Which parts or subsystems did you make, or have made, yourself, that you wish could have been purchased off the shelf for a reasonable price?
Which parts or subsystems do you think are candidates for standardization in the coming personal rocket industry?
RG: I have purchased (and will purchase) a number of components like parachutes, valves and fluid handling components, and the like. There are a great deal of parts that can be used right-off-the-shelf. As for which parts could become standardized for personal rocketry, I am not really in a position to know.
7) What's Next.
by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH
Say you are successful, and I hope you are. What's next? Do you try it again only higher? Also any plans of donating your rocket to the Smithsonian? This would definitely be considered Air & Space history and be worthy for all to view. Or on the other hand after are you looking for monetary gain? Something like pay 12 bucks to see Rocket guy's Rocket?
RG: I want to move on to a commercial launch operation which would allow a "for profit" venture to begin producing money for future development funds. The first step is "Rocket Skydiving" -- simple, catapult launched giant water rockets that can take a load of skydivers to 15,000 feet in under a minute. This would be safer than airplanes. As time progressed, we would introduce bigger and higher flying rockets, which would eventually allow non-skydivers access to 80-100 thousand foot high flights in small winged return vehicles with pilots. I would be happy to donate my capsule to Smithsonian.
8) Engine Work? by Anonymous Coward
Seems like you've done lots of mockups and landscaping, but I haven't seen any work on the actual engine (other than a single picture of it).
Having seen all the trouble with catalyst packs and such that other projects have had, how come you havn't done any test firings yet?
Have you even tested your pneumatic launcher?
RG: My facilities here are big, and I have had to continue to grow and improve things. "Landscaping" here has been minimal, and for the control of dust more than anything else (the Oregon High Desert is a dusty place). I have 15 rocket motors currently, one 2500 pound thrust motor, 6, 135 pound thrust motors (for capsule separation from fuel tank), and 8, 55 pound thrust motors (for capsule stability/guidance).
I don't know what is being referenced by "all the trouble with catalyst packs..." Peroxide reaction engines have been around for years, and follow specific scientific formulas. Some people are trying to make changes to get higher thrust, etc. As for the launcher, yes, it works perfectly. I have done the tests to demonstrate the amount of "push" it can develop. At 40 psi, it delivers 2000 pounds of push, and when the launch sleeves have cleared the launch tubes, there is only about an 8% loss of volume. As for a full test, there is a catch 22. In order to fully test the launching of an 1100 pound payload, I need to have a fully recoverable system on board, or I will destroy whatever is launched. I am in no hurry to do this test, and will do so when I am ready.
9) future of private industry space travel
by crystalplague
I, like a lot of people, are quite skeptical about the success of your project. However, let us assume that you have launched yourself, everything went perfectly, and you are resting safely back on earth.
What do you think this will do to the future of space travel? Do you think this will set a precedent for the private industry to get involved in space travel?
RG: Regardless of people's skepticism, I am pursuing what is (and has been my dream) for my own purposes. I appreciate the importance that so many other's have placed on this effort, but I would still do it if I was alone and no one was watching. However, due to the number of people who have made comments, I do expect my experience to encourage more private participation in the field of private space industry.
10) Had to be asked...
by Dirk Pitt
How does it feel to be the only person in history preselected for the Darwin Award nominations?
RG: I do not recognize any such nomination. To my understanding, the recipients of past Darwin Awards have been stupid people doing stupid things. My project is not a candidate for such. I am not doing this because i am bored and looking for fame and fortune. On launch day, if I've any inkling that I might not survive, I simply won't go.
11) Legal issues? by crow
Have you ran into any legal issues with your rocketry? Have the government had any significant impact (pro or con)?
RG I recently met with the FAA in DC, and they are very supportive, and want to be in a position of actually being able to issue me a launch license. They have been following my efforts for the past several years, and offered to be of any assistance I need to do things legally. I was very impressed and excited by just how receptive and supportive they were.
I recently met with the FAA in DC, and they are very supportive, and want to be in a position of actually being able to issue me a launch license. Anyone else see this coming? A DMV for homebrewed rockets?
"Powers. I have them."
That's why it's called rocket "science". If it were rocket "engineering" the success rate would be much higher.
Have you hugged your Karma Whore today?
Q: In case something goes wrong, are you planning to take with you a large ten-gallon cowboy hat to wave around on reentry?
A from RG: No, I'll be wearing a space suit, and a cowboy hat would not be a wise fashion accessory.
Me thinks he completely missed the clever reference to Dr. Strangelove here. Pitty...
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
"Simple, catapult launched giant water rockets" which you would ride from, say, sea level to 15,000 feet in less than a minute and then jump out of.
Safer than which "airplanes," exactly?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
If slashdot existed at 1903, you would send the same post about Wright brothers right? :)
I admire what he's doing, but reading his answers I'm having second thoughts about my optimism for his success. He simply doesn't answer the first question, and in another say's he's "no genius." Rocket Scientists have that expression about them for a reason, it takes a lot of know how and intelligence to do something like this safely and successfully, just look at how bad the rockets were on junkyard wars...
~ now you know
2) operational testing?
by Nehemiah S
What kind of testing have you done for your design(s)? Wind tunnel tests, computational fluid dynamics, flying scale models, etc? I've also noticed that your design has changed considerably since the first time you were featured on Slashdot, and as an aerospace engineer myself it would be interesting to know what your design criteria were and how you arrived at them.
RG: My design has changed because I do not profess to be an aeronautical engineer of any sort, and as I have proceeded, I have allowed myself to make the necessary changes resulting in a better design. A number of people have a called me on several design concerns, and I listened. As for wind tunnel tests and the like, no. The rocket is near perfect in its shape, and for what I require it to do (go up and down in a relatively stable manner), it is fine.
Very informative, thanks. But i am curious: how can you say it is near perfect if you haven't tested it? Hope you give more info than that in your talk to the AIAA...
Good luck.
neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
who expect this guy to actually have a personality?
:-)
I figured somebody who created all these cool toys, and then decided to build his own rocket would be an intriguing and compelling individual. Not to mention I expected him to get the Strangelove reference and have some humor to add to the responses.
Instead we're left with curt, almost cookie-cutter answers that anybody here could've predicted.
Definitely not one of the better interviews. Why is it kernel-hackers can be so entertaining and the Rocketman and Bruce Campbell come off as such duds?
sedawkgrep
Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
They didn't have any high-level aerospace engineering degrees, did they? Oh yeah, those didn't exist back then...
-/-
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Bruce Campbell and the Rocketguy both live wild on the outside. People like that tend to be a little dry on the inside.
On the other hand, a kernel hacker tends to live a pretty dry outside life, but is filled with all sorts of insanity on the inside. (I mean who else would want to kernal hack?) [Just kidding!]
-.-
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
a) Oh shoot, I probably shouldn't have made the fuel tank out of silver.
b) ...and my wife always wanted to be a blonde.
c) I'm building a rocket in my backyard. Where in the hell am I supposed to get buckyballs and multi-atomic nitrogen, smart guy?
d) The other half of the standard problems are eliminated by leaving the rocket science to the brain surgeons.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Rocket Guy Fires Back sounds like a gay porno. I'm all for widening slashdot's readership and exploring new journalistic niches, but I think this is going a little too far.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
i would say that he have a "serious" budget...
remember - private industries doing space travel (or, shoot self up and down in rocket in general) costs magnatudes less than certain budget guzzling government organizations.
and don't diss on the man because he is not what you consider smart. many mechanics and car tuners (old days, anyhow) knows a lot about practical knowledge without ever finishing high school.
i think it is much more important that this man is doing something that he really wants to do and puts the dedication and effort behind it. this, i believe, is the smartest thing you can do, because you avoid the "death bed oh i wish i did this and that" syndrom. this action/decision alone is "smarter" than most of the folks out there stuck in their misery ridden lives and keep pushing the things they really wanted to do into tomorrow, and tomorrow again
My life in the land of the rising sun.
The leading theory on what caused the explosion of the Kursk is the H2O2 propellant in a torpedo (NOT a warhead!)
(Here's another link)
...and another.
And dont you TRY AND MAKE HIM.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It has already been proved that this can be done using only the technology that was available in 1960s Russia, so it's not exactly rocket sci^H^H^H^H^H erm... It's not as if there is anything groundbreaking about the science here, as he says in the answer to my question.
His achievement will be in showing that his trip can be done affordably by a private individual, not that it can be done at all.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
It was highly concentrated H2O2 that did in the Kursk. Nasty stuff.
Just thought I'd mention it.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Reminds me of when we were at a physics convention and one of the guys (who was not quite at master level) took on a street hustler chess player in a match. Hustler-guy wasn't quite up to winning, though the game looked close. Some businessman comes up to watch, and finds out we're physicists and starts going on about "rocket scientists testing their wits against a guy on the street"... we felt insulted. The NASA and Boeing and Lockheed guys who do rockets are just dumb engineers after all!
The point being, there are lots of much harder things to do in life than building a box that just goes up and down off some fire in its tail. NASA and Boeing and Lockheed people like everybody to think it's really really hard and expensive and requires all those fancy engineering studies, but it really doesn't. Go check out your local hobby store for model rockets, if you don't believe me.
Energy: time to change the picture.
You didn't read it carefully, or didn't bother to read the test plan at all. The plan is to have an actual rocket motor with a reduced fuel load (1/20th load) on the test vehicle. The catapult will provide enough speed (30 mph over 9 ft travel) for initial stability and the motor will propel it to it's peak altitude.
t ml
http://www.rocketguy.com/rocket/032702_status.h
I suggest reading the whole plan before you try to slam someone. The moderators who modded you up ought to do a little research too since their ignorance is leaking out all over the place.
Well, the tests the Wright brothers did took place on a flat spot at Kitty Hawk, so since they were going about 30 mph about five feet off the ground, I'd say the safety level is a bit higher.
Still, this guy seems to understand his limitations, he's taking as many precautions as he can realistic take and he doesn't sound like an overzealous lunatic, so I think he stands a good chance of coming out of this alive. He may have to abort his flight, but saying his death is a foregone conclusion is short-sighted.
I, for one, hope that he gets his ride to space.
Virg
You gave me an idea for a new extreme sport.
One side of the grounds launches the parachute packs, the other side launches the (hopefully) parachuters. The parachuters then catch the parachute packs in mid "flight", or perhaps in self-guided free-fall, put them on, open them, and then drift back to earth.
If you can't catch a chute, well, they name the new crater after you.
Table-ized A.I.
I really don't want to sound insulting, but being a model rocket hobbyist alone does not qualify you as a rocket scientist except in the most basic sense (if you're also an engineer, my apologies). Contrary to your experience, building a stable rocket frame capable of lifting more than 100 pounds is not only not easy, it's never been done. One of the things you're not dealing with is liquid fuel. To find out how hard it is to stabilize that, do this experiment (which I've done several times). Build a 6 foot frame about 2 inches in diameter. Put as much engine on the tail as you wish, and put an eight ounce weight in the nosecone. make the center two feet of the rocket a plastic tank, and half-fill it with water. Then launch. If your rocket gets more than twenty feet off the ground before it falls 20 degrees off launch vector, you can count yourself one heck of a designer (and I'd love to see your tank design). The other thing you're not used to handling is fragile airframes. A cardboard tube doesn't seem like much, but if you want to try building a rocket where the power-to-stress ratios are the same as a full size launch vehicle, build your next rocket out of drinking straws and construction paper. Also, keep in mind that a model rocket turning twenty degrees off its flight vector will fly in the wrong direction, but a full size rocket doing the same thing will generally collapse from the shear force. This is what makes the ability to design a complex guidance system so difficult. He makes no mention of his methods, but someone who does not have any engineering experience cannot typically design a functional gyrobalancing guidance system. Hell, people who are rocket scientists work on these things for years, and most guidance systems are designed for specific frames, so it's not very easy to "borrow" someone else's design for your own frame.
I wish him all the luck in the world, but not calling in some engineering expertise for review is asking for trouble.
Virg
I think it's ironic that here on Slashdot, that there seems to be so little tolerance or understanding of people who might have different ways of thinking and expressing themselves.
How did this parent get modereated up? Three of Grabs posts are +4 or more, yet none of them are remotely correct! He didn't read the part about the catapult, (it catapults a water rocket, thus it doesn't need to achieve a very high velocity) and he ignores the simplicity of the design. V2's worked just fine without fancy control systems; it's just plain not necessary if your tragectory is simple.
I agree that math is a fundamentally important part of engineering, but some things work just fine by trial and error.
Those questions are terrible. If I were the interviewee, I'd probably send them back with a note like, "uh...get real." Darwin Awards? Dr. Strangelove? Yeah, that's the HARD-HITTING stuff there, guys. Way to go. Next, why don't you lecture us about the state of amateur rocketry in post-Columbine, post-9/11 America?
Not everybody cares about the pop culture to which many of you cling, and indeed some of us actively despise and avoid it whenever possible. You are not cute, hip, or funny.
If that weren't bad enough, now I have to sit and watch a bunch of backseat undergraduate engineers naysaying this highly motivated and dedicated individual who is actually doing something! Hey, well, if you don't think he will make it then cool. You are welcome to try and prove his task impossible by throwing numbers and formulas around that you have a marginal understanding of, but that doesn't make his success any less likely. He may not be an engineer, and I know that the engineer's ego is a large and dangerous creature, but please...he's doing something cool and fascinating and intriguing. You're not. Deal with it in some other way than with judgement values and boringly predictable jealous criticism.
> ...missiles using similar liquid fuel using only aerodynamic surfaces and relatively simply gyroscopic guidance systems.
Both of your examples are not capable of getting high enough for this guy.
> None of this technology is new or complex by modern standards.
Nor is it very useful for this guy. The guidance systems used by V-2 rockets were (unsurprisingly) designed to stabilize V-2s, and as I said before, simply lifting a design from a different frame usually doesn't work.
> I don't believe I suggested making a full size rocket out of cardboard tubes either I'm fully aware of the fact that as the scale increases so do the stresses on the airframe.
The example I provided was more to illustrate that one of the major problems with big-scale rockets is that the guidance system can't be "good", it has to be "great" because the stress forces from pivoting just a tiny bit out of flight line are sufficient to demolish all but the heaviest designs, something model rockets simply don't suffer from.
> Try taking your tube - filling it with a sponge like material and then adding the water. Not such a great design problem when you think about it.
This one is actually on the books, because a few builders thought that a saturated medium would make for low-splash fuel tanks (when it was proposed, sloshing fuel was a major guidance problem, as most rockets at that time burned kerosene). However, the design failed miserably, for two reasons. First, it was very difficult to get the fuel out of the medium when you needed it to burn (something my experiment doesn't address, but that a liquid-fueled engine must do). Second, When the medium was subjected to the G-forces of launch, it would simply squash down to the bottom of the tank, which caused the top portion of the tank to be only liquid (back to the sloshing fuel problem) and putting severe stress on the bottom of the tank (which caused more than one tank rupture with resultant kaboom). So, it's a good idea, but I must send you back to the drawing board.
Virg
This is just flat out bullshit. Peroxide works as a monopropellant because it has a positive heat of formation: When H2O2 breaks down into H2O and O2, it releases heat. The problem is that, at high concentrations, if the breakdown process starts, it can easily run away. Excessive heat or inappropriate contamination or just bad luck can start the process. It may not techincally be a "fire" but you aren't going to be able to tell the difference if you're sitting on it when it happens.
I don't know what is being referenced by "all the trouble with catalyst packs..." Peroxide reaction engines have been around for years, and follow specific scientific formulas.
Yes, peroxide rockets have been around for years. And in fact there is a well documented problem with the peroxide poisoning the catalyst bed. This isn't an issue if you don't care about reusability (and I doubt he does), but he obviously hasn't done much research if he hasn't at least encountered mention of this issue.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
Sigh...
I've met Brian, and he's legit. He DOES do his homework. When he claims not to know much about engineering, he's really being modest. Anything he doesn't understand, he learns. Anything he thinks he needs to make his project successful, he does. Example: Cosmonaut Training.
I have a friend who helps him from time to time, and my friend is a veteran of aerospace design, from his father being an aircraft mechanic, to him working for companies like Aerovironment, and working on experimental NASA craft.
I have also personally seen Brian's equipment, designs, engines, and facilities, and am quite confident in his ability to make his project succeed.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.