Build Your Own Cruise Missile

WegianWarrior writes "Bruce Simpson, the man behind one of the more interesting site about pulsejets on the web, has launched a project to build a US$5000 DIY cruisemissile - just to prove that it can be done, since some said his earlier article about it was off the peg. Bruce has also designed and placed on his site a non-weld pulsejet you can build with simple tools, a 2D airflow modeling rig and a new valve/injector design for conventional pulsejets (according to the first page on his site, this new design is placed in the public domain)." We linked to his pulsejet pages about two years ago.

Comments

Re:this raises some interesting questions indeed .

[EinarH]

how do we prevent terrorist from using this kind of stuff ?

You can't protect yourself 100% from the fact that terrorist could construct and use a LCCM. The illusion of security is something that you just have top deal with. The illusion that a nation can protect itself 100% from a terrorist attack is quite naive.

limiting acces to knowledge (with DMCA style laws)?

Won't work. The information someone needs to do this is already public. Everything one needs about electronics, mechanics, jet engines, physics, math, rochet science etc.; it's all avalible as for someone to "piece togheter".

creating a orwellian policial state where all are suspect ans subject to vigilance (and who controls the vigilantes) ?

With PATRIOT ACT and the enchanced PATRIOT II you will probably get there faster than you know of..

limitating the publication of (now) public-domain stuff ('cause it can be used to devilish ends) ?

Well I doubt that would work since someone who wants the information could get it from Europe, Russia or/and Asia.
And the cost of putting a limit on informatin in areas such as electronics or rocket science would be *way* over what anyone would accept.

The best way to prevent a terrorist attack with LCCM's is to keep an eye on who's who in rocket scienc, jet propulsion and turbo jets.
The powerplant on the rocket is the one single component that i difficault to get(buy) or construct.

Or better (like thats gonna happen); try to eliminate the reason behind the fact that there actually are (probably) somone who wants to fire a LCCM on New York.

Re:Wow

[qazxsw]

Unfortunately they've been dumbing down the high school chemistry books to make sure students can't figure out how to from those books. They've ruined chemistry classes in the pathetic attempt to prevent students from learning "bad things".

Re:this raises some interesting questions indeed .

[GlassHeart]

I doubt you could appease Kim Chong-il, Timothy McVeigh, Bin Laden, and the Unibomber all at the same time

First of all, they're not all terrorists, so there are different ways to engage each threat. Let's assume you're talking about terrorists.

They need a friendly environment in which to hide and train. This is easy today, with many people hating the US. The hatred can be tempered by deeds: perceived sensitivity and fairness in dealing with Palestine; transparent and fair rebuilding of Iraq. Basically, improve the chances that a righteous Arab would call the cops on the terrorists living next door.

They need money. People angry at the US give money to terrorists. Decrease this anger, and they are left with a few independently wealthy fundamentalists, whose assets are much easier to track down and seize.

They need weapons. You might be aware that the US is one of the biggest exporters of weapons. You don't have to cut it out, but you do want to be more careful who you sell them to.

So why aren't these attacks happening?

[Goonie]

It seems we have a bit of a paradox here:

1. Terrorists want to kill as many Americans/Israelis/whomever as possible.
2. Anybody with access to the internet, basic levels of clue, and moderate amounts of cash, can screw together cruise missiles, dirty bombs, chemical weapons, etc etc, in complete secrecy.
3. Chemical weapons, cruise missiles etc. are an effective way of killing people.
4. Intelligence/police agencies are incapable of preventing such attacks before they occur.
5. Therefore, given the above, lots of people should be dead through cruise missile/chemical weapon/insert diabolical nasty weapon here attacks by terrorists.

But the above hasn't happened. With the spectacular exception of September 11 (which wasn't achieved through high-tech means), the best terrorists have been able to do is conventional bombing, and they haven't been able to kill that many people, even Israelis.

So, what's the problem with the above argument?

Overreaction by Americans

[ikekrull]

A 'cruise missile' without an explosive payload is just a model jet with a sophisticated guidance system.

Perhaps the term 'missile' is a term that carries a negative connotation, but semantics should really not affect the fundamental issue that it is OK to experiment with aeronautics and electronics in your back yard because its your back yard and we (well, Bruce does) live in a moe-or-less free society.

Personally, i would think a more interesting goal would be to build something akin to a Predator UAV than a cruise missile, but that is just me.

John Carmack is trying to build a fucking InterContinental Ballistic Missile in his backyard, but everyone seems to love that project.