Slashdot Mirror


Most Powerful Amateur Rocket in Canada

Alex Schmidt writes "A group of Canadian 'amateur' rocketeers successfully launched a 16 1/2 foot rocket to a height of about 5500 feet. The rocket is based on the 'Dauphine' a meteorological rocket from the 1960's. The rocket weighed 300 pounds, stood 16.5 feet high and 21 inches in diameter. The motors generated 2400lbs of thrust. It successfully landed after 3 of 4 parachutes properly deployed."

202 comments

  1. Engine? by mgcsinc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did they use a "C" engine or were they able to stick a "D" in that baby?

    1. Re:Engine? by proctorg76 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      According to the letter code used by the National Association of Rocketry ( http://www.nar.org ), each letter has twice the power of the class before it and a "D" class engine generates between 2.5 and 5 lbs of thrust. The article claims 2,400 lbs of thrust, so by doubling the power range until it includes 2400 it is revealed that this would be an "L" class engine.

      --
      Something distinct that people will remember better than my name
    2. Re:Engine? by kireK · · Score: 1

      I can't beleive Canada hasn't launched anything larger than an L... geez folks, it's not that big of a rocket.

    3. Re:Engine? by NanoWit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So that would put a Saturn V (~7,500,000 lb.) at one letter past Z (AA?)

    4. Re:Engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, dumb question that I didn't see an answer for in the newspaper article:

      How *long* (in seconds) did this rocket motor burn?

      Also, what might its peak velocity have been?

      Sorry, but I'm too tired to go back to my 30+ year-old physics books to figure all this out - I hope there are enough practicing amateur rocketry folks here who can fill us in.

      Glad they did it in Calgary - I'd hate to think what the reaction would have been if they'd launched from northern New Jersey or western Long Island...

    5. Re:Engine? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope. That would put it at 5Y. The first stage had 5 F1 engines.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    6. Re:Engine? by kireK · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, wrong again...

      According to the specs from Rockets of the World, the SaturnV is as follows;

      Stage 1 was 5,800,000,000 N-s, which would make it 5xAC

      Stage 2 was 1,200,000,000 N-sec or a 5xAB

      Stage 3 was 450,000,000 N-sec or a AC motor

    7. Re:Engine? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      The article claims 2,400 lbs of thrust, so by doubling the power range until it includes 2400 it is revealed that this would be an "L" class engine.
      You need to know the burn time to calculate the rocket class, as the class is based on the total impulse not just the thrust. It had 3 engines which would Ls if the burn time was only 1 second, but it was probably considerably longer than that.
    8. Re:Engine? by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the project page the total impulse is close to the limit of O class, just under 41,000Ns.

    9. Re:Engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was an 'O' and two 'L's.

    10. Re:Engine? by Walrus99 · · Score: 1

      The story did not say that once the parachutes deployed the rocket was caught by a gust of wind and became lodged in a pine tree down the block. It took several hours of throwing rocks and sticks to finally knock it down.

      "Neo is not the 1, he is the eigenvector that will create a skew matrix."

    11. Re:Engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming that the average thrust is the only thing that matters in the letter designation, you are sorely mistaken and I hope I am never at an event where you send up a rocket.

      The rocket had an O5100 with 29999 newton seconds of thrust, with 2 outboard L's... total newtons-seconds came to just under the Canadian limit of 40960 newton-seconds, a FULL O...

      5100 newton seconds comes out to about 1400 pounds of thrust, and the each L produces close to 500 pounds of thrust each.. so, yes, 2400 pounds of thrust...

      Make sure you know what you are talking about before you blather on. I know *I know* what I am talking about.

    12. Re:Engine? by proctorg76 · · Score: 1

      Oops. I would like to apologize for running off half cocked and giving an incomplete answer before gathering all the data, I was working off the numbers given in the news article and had in fact had questions about that being the total impulse or per-second average, but just jumped to the conclusion to both provide an answer faster, and to diss canada. I would also like to thank RedWizzard, Forged, and some anonymous coward for correcting me and then brutally putting me back in my place.

      --
      Something distinct that people will remember better than my name
  2. Blame Canada! by Ricin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, got flashbacks from the South Park movie. I can almost see Rummy deliver the speech.

    1. Re:Blame Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA HA HA HA... thanks, that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I'm glad that the moderators have such a great sense of humor, this totally deserves +4 Funny.

    2. Re:Blame Canada! by Joester · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they got the idea from the McDonalds commercial.

  3. All your base are belong to Ontario... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Canada has set us up the bomb!

    1. Re:All your base are belong to Ontario... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ontario? Grab an Atlas, Calgary is in Alberta.

    2. Re:All your base are belong to Ontario... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say!!

    3. Re:All your base are belong to Ontario... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to do this sort of thing in Alberta: If it goes off course and smashes into the ground, there's virtually nothing it could hit that matters.

    4. Re:All your base are belong to Ontario... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      except for a BSE infected cow....

    5. Re:All your base are belong to Ontario... by corkhead0 · · Score: 1

      The feed for that cow came from the US

    6. Re:All your base are belong to Ontario... by corkhead0 · · Score: 1

      And the feed was infected with mad cow BTW. The feed for the only cow that was infected came from the US, stop watching fox and CNN and you might've known that.

    7. Re:All your base are belong to Ontario... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Ontario? Grab an Atlas, Calgary is in Alberta.

      Aw, give him a break. He's probably an American, so it's amazing that he can name any province at all.

  4. Under Heathrow by Mattb90 · · Score: 1

    I've launched 500foot and a 1000foot rockets under the Heathrow flight path, which go nowhere near the planes, but do you think anybody would mind if I launched one of these under the same route?

    --
    Mattb90
    Editor, allaboutgames.co.uk
    1. Re:Under Heathrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot - Hopefully comming soon to a jail near heathrow...

    2. Re:Under Heathrow by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Flight path is vague. Are you in controlled airspace or not?

      If you are, then you probably can't launch. If you aren't, you should call the FAA and get them to put out a NOTAM anyway.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Under Heathrow by gkAndy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I somehow doubt the FAA have jurisdiction for the airspace around, and above Heathrow. That would be the CAA that does, as Heathrow is in the UK, which is not a federal country.

      --


      --
      Andy
    4. Re:Under Heathrow by BrainInAJar · · Score: 2, Funny

      USA: FAA
      Britain: CAA
      Canada: Transport Canada.

      We got ripped off on government agency names.

    5. Re:Under Heathrow by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I somehow doubt the FAA have jurisdiction for the airspace around, and above Heathrow.

      You didn't get the memo?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:Under Heathrow by njriley · · Score: 1

      Not as if your cardboard tube is really going to bother an A320... but I imagine you'd be held responsible for any byproducts of something that looks an awful lot like an SA-2 through a window...

  5. If that was in US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They would be arrested already, under the patriot act, for developing terrorist weapons...

    1. Re:If that was in US... by confused+one · · Score: 1

      There are ways around that, and it requires paperwork... Lots and lots of paperwork. We all know how the anonymous HATE paperwork = )

    2. Re:If that was in US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likelly since they are Canadian they would be declared "enemy combatants" and detained indefinitely. No trial and the feds would not need to release names....

  6. MacKenzie Brothers in Space by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somewhere near Sudbury....

    "Hey Doug, watch me shake up this Molson's 12 pack, like, real good and hard, eh?"

    "Eh, Bob, let's open them all at once"

    WHOOSHHHH!!!!

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:MacKenzie Brothers in Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Call it Beerhunter, eh? And, like, hold it really close to your face so even if it isn't the one, you're still gonna get wet.

  7. Re:In other news... by bsharitt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So if there is a war and a draft, I don't guess going to Canada is an option?

  8. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Three children, ages 7, 9, and 11 were arrested by the Department of Homeland Security on charges of "terroristic activities" for launching an unauthorized Estes model rocket with... wait for it... an explosive substance.

  9. Was it really impressive? by mnmn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Am I the only one who feels the rocket should have done better than 6000 feet? In the highest amateur rocket records,Ive seen 30 kilometers for about the same size of a rocket. Maybe that was liquid propelled and multistaged.

    It was impressive though and looked like an anti aircraft missile.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Was it really impressive? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can kinda understand limiting the height.

      2 major reasons.

      1: A lot less is needed as far as permits / permissions.
      2: Better chances of recovery...

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    2. Re:Was it really impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In the post 9/11 world it's fairly impressive to get anything fired into the air without another missile returned in anger ...

    3. Re:Was it really impressive? by Yo+Grark · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's 6000 US feet, here in canada' that's like at least 20,000. :)

      Yo Grark
      Canadian Bred with American Buttering.

      --
      Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    4. Re:Was it really impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was thinking the same. You can get 6K out of a G or H class, maybe it was a typo of 55,000 feet?. It is ashame they didn't discuss more of the technical details. The plume makes it look like amonium nitrate/magnesium or aluminum.

      Curious,
      Frank

    5. Re:Was it really impressive? by andreMA · · Score: 1

      It seems unimpressive to me. It's not difficult to attain 1200-1500 feet with small, multi-staged rockets even using just Estes "D" and "C" engines. ...Imagine a cluster of Beow^H^H^H^HD-12-0's...

    6. Re:Was it really impressive? by andreMA · · Score: 1
      Leave it to me to blow the joke...

      Imagine a Beow^H^H^H^Hcluster of D-12-0's. Yes, replying to my own post is lame, but I wanted to correct myself before others did.

    7. Re:Was it really impressive? by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Out in the Blackrock desert they do the 50,000 ft bowling ball drop.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    8. Re:Was it really impressive? by powerlinekid · · Score: 1

      John Katz is that you? ;)

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    9. Re:Was it really impressive? by taniwha · · Score: 4, Interesting
      we've flown similar rockets to 100k ft at Blackrock in the US - the Canadian rocket looks big and heavy to me - similar to this one that flew to a similar height on larger motors.

      100k ft is REALLY hard to reach - motors are extremely expensive and the technology is not wonderfully reliable. Mind you the US govt just banned all our motors due to the 'Patriot' act. On the other hand flying a light weight rocket to 6k is easy, people do it all the time - on cardboard and plywood - 100k requires lightweight composite materials that can stand flying thru mach 3

    10. Re:Was it really impressive? by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      No, if it was Katz the post would have been a lot more long-winded, on the order of a few pages long..

    11. Re:Was it really impressive? by quigonn · · Score: 1

      Who TF is Jon Katz? The wonderful thing about a /. account is that you can specify what you do not want to read.

      --
      A monkey is doing the real work for me.
    12. Re:Was it really impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was there to watch it, and it was very impressive... it was close to 300 pounds for the rocket, and the hights the original poster was imagining are usually attained by minimum diameter rockets that are very light... or LOX/H rockets that are mulistaged and have multibillion dollar budgets :-)

    13. Re:Was it really impressive? by CDeity · · Score: 1

      This was hardly notable. The Reaction Research Society routinely surpasses this using amateur rocket motors. Their 475 lb 14,000 lb thrust solid fuel rocket launched a dart reaching an altitude of 280,000 feet. Their project site outlines the launch pretty well. To my knowledge, no amateur group has attempted or reached this before or since.

    14. Re:Was it really impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't know who Katz is, how do you know that you don't want to read him? Answer: Read "Geeks" and learn the hard way.

  10. Re:Model rockets.. by ksb · · Score: 3, Funny

    When the fuel runs out..... the earth!

  11. Looks like good fun by fname · · Score: 1

    That's taking model rocketry to a whole new level. Sounds like good fun, I'm looking forward to watching the Discovery program to find out what they used for control, etc. Sounds like it worked, and I bet it came about through a consensus process (i.e., all 4 had to agree it was ready). I wonder if they went through a no/ no-go checklist-- Controls? Go! Engine? Go! Parachutes? Go! etc.

    It's also curious to see this happening in Canada. Would DHS or the FAA allow this in the states, and what kind of permits are required before launching something to 5000 feet?

    1. Re:Looks like good fun by mikeophile · · Score: 5, Informative
      If you want to do this in the US, here is the appropriate waiver form.

      You just have to make sure your launch conforms to the following regulations.

      May not be operated in a prohibited or restricted area without permission from the using or controlling agency, as appropriate [14 CFR 101.3]
      May not be operated in a manner that creates a hazard to people or property [14 CFR 101.7(a)]
      May not drop anything that creates a hazard to people or property [14 CFR 101.7(b)]
      If within a restricted area, must: [14 CFR 101.21]
      Not be operated within 1500 feet of any person or property not associated with the operations [14 CFR 101.23(g)]
      Comply with additional limitations imposed by the using or controlling agency, as appropriate. [14 CFR 101.21]

      If not within a restricted area, must: [14 CFR 101.21]
      Not operate in a manner that creates a collision hazard with other aircraft [14 CFR 101.23(a)] Not operate within controlled airspace [14 CFR 101.23(b)]
      Not operate within 5 miles of the border of any airport [14 CFR 101.23(c)]
      Not fly to altitude where cloud coverage is greater than 50% [14 CFR 101.23(d)]
      Not fly to any altitude where the visibility is less than 5 miles [14 CFR 101.23(e)]
      Not fly into any clouds [14 CFR 101.23(f)]
      Not operate closer than 1500 feet from anyone not involved [14 CFR 101.23(g)]
      Not fly between sunset and sunrise [14 CFR 101.23(h)]
      Notify the nearest FAA Air Traffic Control center 24-48 hours before the launch [14 CFR 101.25]


      In addition, your rocket itself has certain limitations.

      Section 400.2 [14 CFR 400.2], which explicitly exempts "amateur rocket activities" from these regulations.
      Section 401.5 [14 CFR 401.5], which defines "amateur rocket activities" as follows: "Amateur rocket activities means launch activities conducted at private sites involving rockets powered by a motor or motors having a total impulse of 200,000 pound-seconds or less and a total burning or operating time of less than 15 seconds, and a rocket having a ballistic coefficient--i.e., gross weight in pounds divided by frontal area of rocket vehicle--less than 12 pounds per square inch."
      BTW, the Canadian rocket had a ballistic coefficient of 6.93 lbs per square inch.
    2. Re:Looks like good fun by homebru · · Score: 3, Funny
      Controls? Go! Engine? Go! Parachutes? Go!

      Guidance? ... Guidance? ... Hello?

    3. Re:Looks like good fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> Guidance? ... Guidance? ... Hello?

      Hey, this is *CANADA* we're talking about - they have plenty of open space, so who needs guidance? Geesh - that would take ALL of the fun out of it!!

      All us poor Yanks can do is sit back and shake our heads...

      Now if only Molson would bring back their Golden _Ale_ that they used to ship South of the Border about 20-25 years ago, I wouldn't feel so bad...

  12. Re:Model rockets.. by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's the attraction?

    Chicks dig things that big, that aerodynamic and with that much thrust.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  13. Rockets are old! by sploxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They are doing cool stuff!

    But this reminds me that someone should develop/build something better than rockets for reaching the space. They've been used for a too long time now.

    There are alternatives... electromagnetic propulsion, laser heated plasma propulsion etc.pp.
    It is technically feasible. But noone seems to be interested in it.
    The scientists doing such stuff are unfortunately short of money...

    1. Re:Rockets are old! by ZachReligious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Like the Jules Verne Gun. Saw this on a discovery or history channel show about super guns. Interesting, and presumably a much cheaper way to launch small payloads (eventually).

    2. Re:Rockets are old! by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is technically feasible. But noone seems to be interested in it.

      That's because it's only theoretically feasible. The USAF and NASA have been working on alternate methods of reaching space for decades now, and their tests haven't been roaring successes.

      Got an alternative that works? Apply for a grant, test it, and then sell it to USAF / NASA. If you can't get a grant yourself, go find someone who can get grants and sell your idea to them.

    3. Re:Rockets are old! by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

      I had forgotten about this. What has happened to it in the last five years, anyway? Did it fall foul of budget cuts or some vested interests?

    4. Re:Rockets are old! by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Oh, but the government is Extrememly interested in it... if it works. There's some research here and there; but, none of it shows enough promise to prove it's doable.

  14. Wake me when an amateur gets to orbit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until then it's still a boyish hobby

  15. Damn, guess the invasion's off by Yo+Grark · · Score: 4, Funny

    And just when I'd thought we'd finally mustered up the full might of our canadian army and air force to attack America, the parachutes deployed.

    Oh well, guess we'll continue taking over the hollywood, maple syrup conglomerate and beer industries. :P

    Yo Grark
    Canadian Bred with American Buttering.

    --
    Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    1. Re:Damn, guess the invasion's off by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Oh well, guess we'll continue taking over the hollywood, maple syrup conglomerate and beer industries. :P

      Don't forget the slashdot story right before this one...ATI is a Canadian company, after all...

    2. Re:Damn, guess the invasion's off by njriley · · Score: 1

      Sure, bring on the F-102s... of course they're much cooler than what we've got :)

    3. Re:Damn, guess the invasion's off by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 4, Funny
      Behave or we'll move one of your 6 remaining hockey teams to someplace silly like Puerto Rico.

      As this is a new "extended format" comment you are now presented deleted scenes:

      Don't make us cut off your F-18 parts supply (and who do you think you're fooling by painting cockpits on the bottom of the plane?)

      (to the tune of O Christmas Tree) O Canada O Canada / How yummy is your bacon / I eat it each and every day / Along with toast and scrambled eggs...

      Je Me Souviens this, punk.

    4. Re:Damn, guess the invasion's off by irix · · Score: 1

      Don't make us cut off your F-18 parts supply (and who do you think you're fooling by painting cockpits on the bottom of the plane?)

      Hey, the original (C)F-18 order also specified a searchlight on the side of the aircraft (so we could illuminate Soviet recon aircraft flying at the edge of our airspace) as well as the fake cockpit painted on the underside of the aircraft :-)

      --

      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  16. Very cool. Congratulations!!! by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    Just in case any of the crew are slashdot readers, Free Beer to you, eh!!

  17. In a (vain) attempt at disscussion... by fiftyvolts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read the article, and it seems to me that what these 4 guys did was quite impressive. The article mentions this was the largest launch in Canadian History. Anyone know what the largest anywhere was?

    What I am really happy about is the amount of publicity they got. Having the rocket being put in a museum and making a Discovery Channel special about the event is going to catch a lot of people attention. Well maybe not that many, but at least the people who care about space exploration.

    Perhaps amateurs like these guys will lead to private space travel organizations.

    1. Re:In a (vain) attempt at disscussion... by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative
      Anyone know what the largest anywhere was?

      I believe it's the Saturn V at 3,038,500 kg (I'm not sure how the mass is derived here perhaps with maximum payload and fuel?). The Energia is smaller (2,524,600 kg) with a slightly greater thrust at launch. This meant that the Saturn could lift somewhat more to orbit than the Energia. In comparison, the Shuttle is 2,029,633 kg.

    2. Re:In a (vain) attempt at disscussion... by JDevers · · Score: 1

      I would guess that the Saturn V launches would be the largest ever. I'm not well versed on Russian rocketry though (or US for that matter).

    3. Re:In a (vain) attempt at disscussion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      >> Anyone know what the largest anywhere was? If you are talking in terms of non-professional rocketry and largest altitude record, I believe it was set by Craig Snyder (US) in 2001. He used a multistage rocket (Type M engines) which reached a very respectable 34,988 ft. You can find most non-professional records here.

    4. Re:In a (vain) attempt at disscussion... by kireK · · Score: 1

      My guess that the largest rocket ever would be the Soviet N1, but the rocket wasn't very successful. It had a big problem blowing up.

      After the N1, I think the Saturn5 would be the most powerfull, and it never went kaBOOM. :-)

    5. Re:In a (vain) attempt at disscussion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saturn V ... the John Holmes of rockets.

    6. Re:In a (vain) attempt at disscussion... by Gleef · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the Russians had some designs....

      I would have loved to have seen the UR-700 (4,823,000 kg) fly. It was 58% larger, with 67% more liftoff thrust than the Saturn V.

      But I think we've drifted a bit from amateur rockets ;-)

      --

      ----
      Open mind, insert foot.
  18. They used *two* ounces of baking soda. by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cripes. I can fart olives higher than 5500 feet.

    1. Re:They used *two* ounces of baking soda. by Icculus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cripes. I can fart olives higher than 5500 feet.

      This needs to go in the fortune file somewhere...

    2. Re:They used *two* ounces of baking soda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can I if I'm in an airplane.

    3. Re:They used *two* ounces of baking soda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am just wondering why Blair1 Q is stuffing olives up his ass??...

  19. Uh... SI units anyone ? by deniea · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is the article so confusing about the units ?

    The rocket is 16 feet 1/2 foot high, diameter in inches, weight in pound as is the thrust..

    Then they move on to the landing zone, and switch to meters for that and also where the crouwd was watching, then back again to pounds..

    Confusing read..

    Why can't they stick to real scientific notations, all with SI units ??

    1. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Base 10 is great for doing back of the envelope calculations, but when you have to deal with real values in the real world, being able to halve, third, and quarter values is much more useful.

      It's a shame that we were born with 10 fingers. If we had 12 fingers, we'd have a much better counting system in base 12.

    2. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by Merlynnus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here in er, Canuckistan as I believe some of the Yanks took to calling it, most of us are able to switch effortlessly back and forth between SI and Imperial. For height and weight of things, you'll find typically find we use feet, inches, and pounds (force). You know, people, watermellon, and rockets. Most other measurements use SI. Distance, temperature, viscosity, etc. Mind you, I've never seen vehicles rated by anything other than hp and lb-ft torque. Can you imagine Watts and kN-m?

    3. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by imsabbel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If you ever see a car with 1 KNm torque, tell me... How can people in the 21th century measure forces or torques with units like "a pound at the lenght of the feet of a old king" ... And i still cant realize the beauty of a system of lenght units that convert like a*12=b, b*3=c, c*something=d. how many yards are 0.34 miles? :)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      " Why is the article so confusing about the units?"

      I'd wager because that's how the parts were measured by the manufacturer when they bought them. Sure, they could have converted to 5.5 meters high, diameter in centimeters, and thrown in some kilograms and Newtons for good measure, but why go through the trouble of converting when both they and most of their audience know what inches and pounds are?

      "Why can't they stick to real scientific notations, all with SI units ??"

      Why should they? Most of us North Americans are fairly fluent in both systems, and that's pretty much who their intended audience is.

      Or do you feel that all websites should only use the English language to also prevent confusing you?

    5. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "How can people in the 21th century measure forces or torques with units like "a pound at the lenght of the feet of a old king"

      We don't. The legal definition of the foot in most countries that still use it is "30.48 centimeters." In fact, in the US, the foot has been defined in metric terms since the nineteenth century.

      "And i still cant realize the beauty of a system of lenght units that convert like"

      Well, for one thing, you're never going to confuse ounce with pounds or yards with miles. I recall seeing an article from the UK about a doctor that accidentally gave a fatal overdose to a newborn because he confused miligrams with micrograms.

      "how many yards are 0.34 miles?"

      Decimals are not the end-all be-all of numbers. They have the nasty habit of repeating when describing perfectly rational numbers. SI is nice and all, but I still don't see it as being the alpha and omega of arbitrary measurement systems.

    6. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Base 8 would be better, given that it's a power of 2. Easy mental conversions to hex, decimal, etc. from octal & less conversion time for CPUs.

    7. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      "how many yards are 0.34 miles?"

      Decimals are not the end-all be-all of numbers. They have the nasty habit of repeating when describing perfectly rational numbers. SI is nice and all, but I still don't see it as being the alpha and omega of arbitrary measurement systems.

      Nothing stops you from using fractions with SI units. And I think the point was that 1/3 of 1760 is not that easy to figure out.
    8. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by zeno_2 · · Score: 1
      how many yards are 0.34 miles? :)

      Its really not that tough, 5280 feet x .34 = 1795.2 feet. Divide that by 3, and you get 598.4 yards.

    9. Re:Uh... SI units anyone ? by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can you imagine Watts and kN-m?
      In Australia, vehicles have been rated in kW and kN-M for some years now (10-15 years)

      All the car ads in the media mention vehicle specs in metric units. For example, the car (a Holden commodore) I drive has a 156kW buick-derived V6 in it, or you can get a 235kW V8.

      Whilst I can convert kW to HP fairly easily in my head, why bother when everything else on the market uses the same units these days?

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  20. Attack Of The Clones? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is it me or do the three guys pictured in the article look like they're identical? I mean, even their baseball caps, t-shirts and footwear are the same and their only distinguishing features are their trousers - presumably so that they can tell each other apart.

    Hmmm, clones with rockets. Where have I heard that before?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Attack Of The Clones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just Canadians. They all look the same.

    2. Re:Attack Of The Clones? by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Cloning is still legal in Canada, eh!

      --jeff++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    3. Re:Attack Of The Clones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's better than looking like you.

    4. Re:Attack Of The Clones? by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 1

      It's hard to tell but these guys look like they are from the Doug McKenzie line. The Bob's are generally much thinner.

    5. Re:Attack Of The Clones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you are but what am I, Mr. Poopy Pants?

  21. Mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Mission Accomplished: Blastoff was a real blast for four Calgary"

    hrm.. shouldn't that be lift off? I can imagine "Blasting" is not something they would want to have happen.

    1. Re:Mission by csguy314 · · Score: 1

      I can imagine "Blasting" is not something they would want to have happen.

      You obviously haven't met anyone from Calgary...

      --
      This is left as an exercise for the reader.
  22. See the rocket by deuist · · Score: 1

    Does anyone think that this guy is enjoying his work a little too much?

  23. Missile Defense by tds67 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    With 2400 pounds of thrust, powered by three motors, the rocket hit an estimated seven or so G-forces as it left the earth behind and reached 5,500 feet, at its highest point, or apogee, before arching back down.

    I see no mention of the Canadian Defense Dept. being notified that this launch was to take place. Isn't there a chance that this sort of thing can be misinterpreted by Canadian or U.S. militaries as being a hostile missile attack coming from another country or by terrorists within Canada? Was there a tense moment at NORAD, I wonder? Can I build my own mega-missile and launch it a mile up whenever I feel like doing it?

    1. Re:Missile Defense by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Very interesting point!
      See e.g. the the weather-rocket nearly nuclear "accident" (found no better URL yet):
      http://politicaltexan.com/wwwboard/messages /43.htm l

      A little bit OT: There are real reasons why nuclear weapons should be abandoned now. They are still dangerous, but most people forgot them since they thought "oh it will get all better now" at end of the cold war. Their existence seems to be even more threatening than in the cold war.

    2. Re:Missile Defense by rich_r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can I build my own mega-missile and launch it a mile up whenever I feel like doing it?
      Yes. Just not twice....

    3. Re:Missile Defense by geekoid · · Score: 1

      you mean a weapon is dangerous? well Gooollllyy, thank for telling us. My goodnew, and ALl this time I thought anything called a 'Weapon' was safe for the kids to lpay on..
      Idiot.

      "Their existence seems to be even more threatening than in the cold war."

      Yes, I saw some walking down the street, wearing chains and leather. man thay HAVE become more dangerous.

      I said it befors and I'll say it again: Idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Missile Defense by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Was there a tense moment at NORAD, I wonder?"

      Hey, Einstein! Canada is NORAD!

    5. Re:Missile Defense by tds67 · · Score: 1

      Who said that it was or wasn't? Not me. Re-read my post and be enlightened.

      (Appropriate nickname, since you're obviously a small fish in a large pond that's trying to make a big splash.)

    6. Re:Missile Defense by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Uhoh. "Idiot..."
      An example: Wouldn't you consider a spill of litres of petrol onto the ground of your garage as *dangerous*?
      This is not a weapon, of course. But it is still dangerous. It doesn't contain stuff that is designed to explode.
      But you consider tons of plutonium, ready to get critical, as harmless?!

    7. Re:Missile Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. What an original concept. Wonder why it hasn't thought of before? Jeez, all we need to do know is to put one of you panty sniffing morons in power.......

  24. Next . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot will report on the most powerful amateur rocket in Zimbabwe.

  25. Michael, you forgot something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [ed. note: no it isn't]
    (without any links of course)

    1. Re:Michael, you forgot something by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      yeah... i saw a TV special on this 3 years ago. amateur rockets and all.... most of them were 20 feet tall and 25 inches in diameter and went a quarter of the way to the moon.

  26. Re:Model rockets.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you suck

  27. Cool videos. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

    These guys were mentioned on /. several months ago. They have been doing launches with video cameras for a while. The videos are very impressive.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  28. President Bush by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 1, Funny

    President Bush said today that this weapon of mass destruction that these 'amateur rocketeers' developed will not be tolerated, and force will be used if neccessary.

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
  29. Project website... by el33thack3r · · Score: 4, Informative

    Project Dauphin website is here.

  30. False Positive on missile defense by rodney+dill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like an invitation for NORAD to fire on Canada.

    Seriously, just how big and how high do these missiles have be, before they attract military attention of an undesired nature.

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
    1. Re:False Positive on missile defense by stpats · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are aware, I hope, that Canada is involved in NORAD? The North American Aerospace Defense Command. NORAD Quickfacts

    2. Re:False Positive on missile defense by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      Yes I am aware of that, the first part of my comment was somewhat facetious. I suppose most of the NORAD radar systems to be somewhat north of anywhere that an amateur launch would take place, as I believe they mainly watched for an attack of the North Pole.

      I do think that given the current world situation and the dim view given to anything resembling a terrorist attack that launching 16 foot rockets, even in a secluded area, would eventually attract some scrutiny.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    3. Re:False Positive on missile defense by confused+one · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that they didn't see it!!!??? They track golfballs in Earth Orbit. I think that (provided it got over the radar horizon) that the saw this too...

    4. Re:False Positive on missile defense by szmccauley · · Score: 0

      Given that the American air force couldn't get their shit together when fundamentalist assholes were flying commercial aircraft into various east coast buildings, somehow I doubt that a 16' rocket at 5500 ' (big deal) would even cause a blip on the NORAD screens. And, BTW, Canada is a member of NORAD.

    5. Re:False Positive on missile defense by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I suppose most of the NORAD radar systems to be somewhat north of anywhere that an amateur launch would take place, as I believe they mainly watched for an attack of the North Pole.

      An attack *of* the North Pole? No.
      An attack *from* the North Pole?. No.
      An attack coming over the North Pole, yes. OTH radar. But also, they watch potential launch sites on the ground as well. Any missile launch generates a big heat plume. Much better to know as it is leaving the silo, rather than 1/2 way to its target.

      And yes, I expect this was large enough to show up on their system.

    6. Re:False Positive on missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, I did mean OVER the North Pole. I just can never keep brain and fingers in sync.

    7. Re:False Positive on missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They track golfballs in Earth Orbit.

      Ok, who did that? And did they yell "FORE"?

    8. Re:False Positive on missile defense by confused+one · · Score: 1
      actually, Alan Shepard took some golf balls with him, to the Moon; and, hit at least one "over the horizon"

      Most of what's tracked in orbit is garbage -- bits and pieces of stuff from our space program ranging from flakes of paint to left-over booster stages.

      The airforce routinely tracks objects 10cm or larger in size. If they crank up the power of the radar, they can see 2-3cm. Using the radio astronomy dishes they can see 2mm.

    9. Re:False Positive on missile defense by Battle_Ratt · · Score: 1
  31. Bob to Doug - by freedog · · Score: 1

    Bob to Doug: "Hey eh, like, quit humping the rocket you fleshy-headed mutant!"

  32. And This is Exciting Because...? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0
    successfully launched a 16 1/2 foot rocket to a height of about 5500 feet.

    And this is exciting because...

    To quote Tom Hanks in Big: I don't get it.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:And This is Exciting Because...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't this be under the "It's funny, laugh" category? I mean, if this is Canada's most powerful amateur rocket...

  33. finally by mattkime · · Score: 1, Funny

    finally the inuit space program is getting the attention it deserves

    --
    Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
  34. Michael Moore Movie by rodney+dill · · Score: 2, Funny

    It'll be in his next movie, that Michael Moore was able to purchase one of these, with out registration, at a Tim Hortons.

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
    1. Re:Michael Moore Movie by Soko · · Score: 1

      Not suprising.

      I'm a Canadian geek, and for me Tim Hortons coffee is rocket fuel - I just can't get off of the ground without it.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  35. 5500 feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, 5500 whole feet ?

    I reached about that in 1988 with a 4-stage model rocket using Estes "D" engines.

    Good to see the Canadians finally catching up to us in hobbyist technology.

    As far as reaching LEO, they're about 2% of the way there. This sure is front page news!

    1. Re:5500 feet? by Grave · · Score: 1

      I reached 5500ft with a single lightweight "C" engine powered rocket. I recall the entire thing (with engine) weighing less than 10 ounces, though I might be wrong about that exactly. I then built another one that weighed 7 or 8 ounces and used a "D" engine. I never recovered it after the launch, because we never saw the streamer deploy. We followed it up as high as we could see, and then never saw anything again. Based on rough estimates, I'd say it probably reached over 6000ft, but I'm not sure.

    2. Re:5500 feet? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      I easily reach 5500' shooting my guns off at new years and those rockets are really small! (Of course I never shoot straight up, always slightly down-wind!)

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re:5500 feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you Iraqi?

    4. Re:5500 feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to burst your bubble here, but there's no way you reach that high with a 10 oz rocket ona C engine. Unless you had anti-gravity built in. The simple physics don't bear it out.

  36. Rockets Ho! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

    Hmmm.... so the Maple Leaf State has a rocket program, eh?

    Not too impressed with the performance though. Robert Goddard hit 1.7 miles in 1937 with his amateur rocket.

  37. canada sucks by Java+no+not+that+jav · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    this is a rather sad acheavment, is canada truely this far behind the rest of the modern world... at this rate they wont get to the moon untill 2043.

    1. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm tired of this canada bashing bullsh**. Pull your head out of your ass for 2 seconds.

      Here's a bit of history for you:

      A long time ago an aircraft known as the Avro Arrow was under development in Canada by canadians. The technology going into this airplane was years ahead of its time. Our good'old neighbours to the South couldn't stand the idea of us Canadians having far superior aircraft. After some political strong arming the US managed to have the program mothballed. A real shame. Now, those canadian engineers working on the Avro needed work, so they headed down to the US and joined NASA. Those same engineers helped get them there 'mericans to the moon.

  38. this is uber cool stuff... by wzoo1 · · Score: 1

    This is actually cool stuff... Now if I had more $$$ I would build my own rocket and launch it... I kinda had the feeling of the FAA stopping me but after reading the requirements to launch a rocket in the US, I figured I could probably do it... WOW they even stuck a 'L' engine in there huh? I think I'm gonna slap a 'Z' engine in there and see how high it goes... ;)

  39. In other news... by kevlar · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news...

    Djibouti constructed its largest steam powered tractor. Its expected to till 40 tons of soil a year.

  40. Terribly sorry.... by BigBadBri · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    But isn't this story a bit like 'the biggest foreskin in Israel', or 'the most honest politician in [fill in country here]', or just maybe 'the most anti-M$ story on /.'?

    So somebody's modded an existing rocket, and made it go a bit higher.

    Am I supposed to be impressed?

    Is it Werner von Braun?

    Have the Canadians discovered a new vein of ex-Nazi scientists to propel their rocket programme into the 20th century?

    Sorry, guys - I'm not impressed.

    --
    oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    1. Re:Terribly sorry.... by john82 · · Score: 1

      1) RTFA
      2) Go to their website where you can see photos of them building their rocket. Yes it's based on an old design (the French Dauphin sounding rocket), but they built it from scratch and to scale. They didn't just mod something from the salvage yard.

      And besides, the last time you built and successfully launched something the size of a small school bus was ... when?

    2. Re:Terribly sorry.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you were to liberate yourself from your ignorance of basic physics and engineering, you might be more impressed.

    3. Re:Terribly sorry.... by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      Sorry, guys - it's ages since I had a -1:Flamebait, so I had to do it.

      It's actually quite impressive, though our local rocketeer (see link) looks to be a bit ahead of these guys.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  41. Well, I feel like a idiot now. by pi_rules · · Score: 1

    About 5 seconds before I hit slashdot I wrote an email to my old high school physics teacher about a project I'm thinking of to use a model rocket to measure wind currents as the rocket decends.

    It's been a -long- time since I launched a model rocket, but I was assuming that 2,000 feet would be -easy- and that 10,000 feet possible. Apparently not.

    Heck, I should make an 'Ask Slashdot' about this one. Shoot rocket to insane heights (apparently) and measure what the wind is doing every 50-100 feet on the way down to make a nice graph of the airs for parachuting. Any takers? Lets assume I'd spend 600 dollars on equipment.

    1. Re:Well, I feel like a idiot now. by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a weather balloon with GPS would better suit your needs - there was an article here a few months back about a person who built one with a single board computer + GPS + radio link fairly cheap. His reached 30,000ft+ pretty quickly (1/2 hr?) and had a rope cutter to drop the package back down at a preset height.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  42. I'm not interested... by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ...until it can run Linux and save Ogg files... ..sorry, I'll go away now.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:I'm not interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? The parent got modded insightful?! "Only on slashdot..."

  43. The terrorists have won by sahonen · · Score: 1

    Too bad you can't do this sort of thing in America anymore. Thank you Patriot act!

    --
    Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  44. Would be illegal in the USA by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Ever since the model rocket hobby was attacked by the 'homeland security department', things like this are no longer possible 'down here'.

    Bah.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Would be illegal in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can make a vacation out of it and launch it in Canada.... Hmmmm

  45. Which proves by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    my throy tha the alledged country 'Canada' is actually a place where world power conduct rogue sciencintific experments.
    All for the sole purpose of:
    CATCHING FAIRY GODPARENTS!!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Which proves by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      You're almost right. When you have about a billion square miles (about a billion square kilometers if you like metric ;-) of wilderness, anyone can conduct rogue scientific experiments. Heck, with a little remote launch equipment, you could probably send off live missles and they wouldn't be able to figure out who it was. I'm sure this will get flagged by the U.S., and Canada will be told to maintain proper vigilance over all potential launch sites, or the Americans will have to send troops into all remote areas to be vigilant for unapproved launches. Of course, they've been doing that every summer for years, but their crack troops (a.k.a. 'tourists') keep forgetting that we actually have alcohol in our beer...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  46. Bigger by geekoid · · Score: 1

    and not from Canada.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  47. Bush Doctrine by fruity1983 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We cannot entertain the threat that Canada's new missile technology poses. Canada, you must immediately relent to weapons inspections. Your aggression will not be tolerated.

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  48. Make your "rocket" Bigger and Longer... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think I can get something to help you do that... let me check my deleted mail folder. I am sure I saw something about that somewhere...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  49. Most Powerful Amateur in Canada by jamonterrell · · Score: 5, Funny

    "16.5 feet ... 21 inches in diameter ... 2400lbs of thrust"

    I just got this same spam last week in my inbox.

    --
    I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
  50. Bush - CIA doctrine by MrEd · · Score: 1
    --

    Wah!

    1. Re:Bush - CIA doctrine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A horse is a horse, of course, of course, and no one expects a horse to preview before posting.

  51. Homeland Security Act might kill the hobby in US by Geekonomical · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I attended a lecture by a bay area ameteur rocketry group. In their presentation they said HLS act might kill the hobby. Maybe Canada can continue. I am not against such laws per se, since we are dealing with extremely powerful machines that can wreak havoc if used with wrong intentions, but I wonder the future of amateur rocketry in present circumstances.

  52. Misunderstanding by megabyte405 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I'm noticing a fair amount of "woohoo, I reached 5500 feet with [insert hobby rocket engine here]". However, if you read the article, or think about the Slashdot article, you'll notice that it's not the height that's important, it's the thrust. Most powerful, not highest flying.

    --
    I recognize people by their sigs. Is that a bad thing?
  53. 26 letters oughta be enough... by Regul8or · · Score: 3, Funny

    for any rocket.

    1. Re:26 letters oughta be enough... by starbirdman · · Score: 1

      According to some of the spam I get it can never be big enough.

  54. Big deal....we do this all the time in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the California dessert.

    Projects like this are not that unusual.

    See http://rocstock.org/

  55. In a related story... by raehl · · Score: 1

    I have the largest rocket in my bedroom.

    1. Re:In a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How big is the Other GUYS ???

      8'O

  56. Check your history books. by temojen · · Score: 1

    US set Canada up the bomb.

  57. Gerald Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Gee, that article makes it sound like an american invented this (multi-injection orbital gun)... not Gerald Bull.

    So howcome it's a "weapon of mass destruction" when Iraq tries to build it, and "space exploration" when an american tries to build it?

  58. Solids? by njriley · · Score: 1

    Nice... but are we stuck with solids? Not that I don't recognize the advantages, but what resources are available for an (educated) amateur liquid rig?

  59. Actually, it's an "O" by forged · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, their website says the rocket "featuring a central Cesaroni Pro150 O impulse rocket motor." Also explains why they picked up such a name, Team "O" :-)

    1. Re:Actually, it's an "O" by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      You sure its not because of their national anthem (Oh Canada?). The article said it was team "O Canada" - maybe a play on words.

    2. Re:Actually, it's an "O" by forged · · Score: 1
      I'm positive that it's a class "O" allright...

      As the site web says, "...featuring a central Cesaroni Pro150 O impulse rocket motor" is already clear.

      Then, if you search Google for "Cesaroni Pro150 impulse" you will find loads of links such as this one detailing the engine specifications.

  60. Re:In other news... by corkhead0 · · Score: 1

    Also, Joe Bob Billy from Texas consumed all 40 tons in one sitting, increasing the national average weight by a pound and a half.

  61. Double take by ralphclark · · Score: 1

    You know, I initially misread that as "A group of Chinese 'amateur' rocketeers successfully launched...". Signs of the times I guess.

  62. Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what these guys would do with all that thrust?
    http://www.p.nutt.btinternet.co.uk/picsan dvids.htm

  63. Oh Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to see Canada is gearing up to join the new space race!

  64. Units by ReinoutS · · Score: 1

    foot? pounds?? inches??? lbs???? Okay so these probably are some weird Yankee measurement units. What I can't figure out however, is what kind of unit 'parachutes' is...

  65. Actually, the most powerful rocket in Canada is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this rocket: http://www.iwantarocket.com/x-prize.htm

  66. Re:Model rockets.. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    And guys wish they had something like that to show them...

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  67. Big Whoopeee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I reached 12,500' in a lousy little 150hp Piper PA28-151 Warrior

  68. Re:Homeland Security Act might kill the hobby in U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I am not against such laws per se

    Your not part of the solution are ya? Return to your house, pull the shades, assume the fetal position and tremble in fear over the potential of possibilities. A real American you are. As if the essence of you isn't disgusting enough, in a few days you'll be standing on the corner wrapped in the flag, waving you little kid safe, eunuch approved sparkler. Heh! America, home of the brave, land of the free. Ever heard of it?