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.
The Monkey Pages: Not just another personal site...okay, so I lie.
An anti-spam solution that's bound to work....
I bet I could get some nerds to build one of these and send a hamster into space.
As the apprentice of Prof. Chaos said, "SIMPSONS DID IT!!!!"
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Seriously,
Intel Inside
AMD
Designed for Windows 95
Though, personally I like a peace sign.
Where do you put the warhead? Some of my Korean friends were asking...
Bill Gates: "Hmmm... 50,000,000,000/5,000 = 10,000,000 cruise missles... Imagine a beowolf cluster of these you hippies!"
besides the obvious *geek* factor this kind of *experiments* and demonstrations should make us all stop to think a bit ...
...
how do we prevent terrorist from using this kind of stuff ?
limiting acces to knowledge (with DMCA style laws)?
creating a orwellian policial state where all are suspect ans subject to vigilance (and who controls the vigilantes) ?
limitating the publication of (now) public-domain stuff ('cause it can be used to devilish ends) ?
the RIAA/DMCA people already want to control what could go on the net, and that is, maybe, only the beggining (see China - although there 's hope there - see the massive failure of the SARS coverup) so maybe it is time to start thinking about how to mantain the net free and at the same time this planet a safe planet to stay
just my two uros,
cheers from Portugal
Silkworm doesn't look too close to MiG-17
However, IIRC, USSR did have a cruise missile developed based on MiG-17 - AS-1 "Kennel".
BTW, a minor nitpick - correct spelling is MiG (which is shorthand for Mikhoyan i Gureevitch, two of the designers wgo started the bureau).
-DVK
"The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
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.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
how do we prevent terrorist from using this kind of stuff ?
Dammit, a bunch of teenagers with box cutters have fly jumbo jets in the WTC. They had about 200 times more explosive in these jets than in one of these missiles and their equipement cost was box cutters and airplane tickets. Why would they want to build one of those missiles?
You have to solve the weakest link, not the sexy link.
Now I'm putting my aluminium foil beanie back on.
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.
It seems we have a bit of a paradox here:
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?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long