Slashdot Mirror


Starchaser Rocket Capsule Drop Tests Successful

thaig writes "Starchaser Industries reports that their NOVA 2 rocket capsule has completed two manned drop-tests from an altitude of 10,000 feet. The capsule was put through a number of manoeuvres during its descent to fully validate the steerable ram-air parachute canopy that made it possible to fly the craft like a glider. Starchaser Industries' Thunderbird project is a contender for the $10 million X-PRIZE. Here's the earlier story."

120 comments

  1. Starchaser by bethane · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well Starchaser are supposed to be launching their one man Nova rocket with sometime this year, with teamleader Steve Bennett in the pilots seat. However they said that last year... Britain could have been third country to orbit a satellite in the sixties had the Black Prince launcher been given the go ahead (see http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/ukspace. htm for a comprehensive history of British rocketry in the fifties and sixties), and was the sixth to orbit in 1971. But remember that Britain was very much the declining power at this time and the labour government was cancelling most areospace projects at the time. Its typically British that we're the only country that developed a launcher then cancelled it after one sucessful flight.

    --


    Bethanie: Whore...
    Fan Whore
    1. Re:Starchaser by spinlocked · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But remember that Britain was very much the declining power at this time and the labour government was cancelling most areospace projects at the time.

      Also remember that the early space programmes were the public face of ICBM programmes. It became clear that trident was going to be our nuclear deterent, so there was little point in continuing the rocketry side of things. The deterent we had in the meantime was characteristicly heath-robinson. I'm a huge fan of the 'delta lady' myself - the vulcan, but they have one of each at Duxford

      --
      # init 5
      Connection closed.


      Oh... ...bugger.
    2. Re:Starchaser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its typically British that we're the only country that developed a launcher then cancelled it after one sucessful flight.

      You may not remember, but Russia did the same with their Buran shuttle (and here are some interesting pictures of the jet-powered prototype almost identical to the one that flew to orbit [except, of course, for the propulsion system]). So they still had / have other means of getting into space - but all the same - it was a lot of effort for nothing.

    3. Re:Starchaser by spinlocked · · Score: 1

      That would be deterrent spelt with 2 r's.

      --
      # init 5
      Connection closed.


      Oh... ...bugger.
    4. Re:Starchaser by madpierre · · Score: 2, Funny

      British Rocket Science 1950 - present.

      Scene: Top secret rocket testing range somewhere in
      the home counties. The Mk IV rocket squats
      on it's launching pad.

      WC Ponsonby-Psmythe: What ho chaps spiffing what?
      So this is the old jalopy what?

      Gen. Fforbes-Fforbes: Jolly good show. I say you
      eggs what times the orrf?

      Private Erk: 0600 m'lud. (tugs forelock)

      Ponsonby-Psmythe: Top hole. Here comes the boffin.

      Prof. Quatermass: (Reading instructions on box)
      Hmm. Light blue touch paper ...
      Stand well back. Ahhh.

      Ponsonby-Psmythe: What's the Cricket score? Had a
      jolly old punt on old bean.

      No wonder the UK got nowhere fast.

      --
      siggy played guitar
    5. Re:Starchaser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse P. G. Wodehouse with the real world, will you. He never did.

    6. Re:Starchaser by mikerich · · Score: 1
      But remember that Britain was very much the declining power at this time and the labour government was cancelling most areospace projects at the time. Its typically British that we're the only country that developed a launcher then cancelled it after one sucessful flight.

      Correct, except the programme was cancelled by a Conservative government.

      However sad, it was probably the right thing to do, the economy was in a terrible state, Harold Wilson's devaluation had undermined confidence in the Pound, we were importing inflation from the US and labour relations were terrible. There was no way Britain could have afforded to have kept going on its own in the early 1970s. It's a crying shame therefore that we were not more enthusiastic members of ESA from day one.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    7. Re:Starchaser by mikerich · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Also remember that the early space programmes were the public face of ICBM programmes. It became clear that trident was going to be our nuclear deterent, so there was little point in continuing the rocketry side of things.

      I think you mean Polaris, and we already had launched HMS Resolution in 1968. The programme was actually cancelled to try and stem a gaping hole in government spending.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    8. Re:Starchaser by mge · · Score: 1

      they spent most of their time turning bits of Australia (or islands offshore) into radioactive slag

  2. This article is awful... by pHatidic · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The capsule was put through a number of manoeuvres during its descent to fully validate the steerable ram-air parachute canopy that made it possible to fly the craft like a glider.

    What maneuvers is it capable of?
    What is a steerable ram-air parachute canopy? How does it work?
    How is this better than what has been done before?
    How does this contribute to the overall goal of winning the X-Prize?

    This sad stub for an article leaves me with much more questions than answers. Can't the editors find a fully fleshed out story or wait for one to be published, rather than linking to things like this?

    1. Re:This article is awful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quit whining nig.

    2. Re:This article is awful... by bigsmelly · · Score: 1

      A steerable ram-air parachute is one of these
      http://www.ukskydiving.com/squarelge.htm

      It's basically a nylon wing that stays rigid because of forward motion. Air is "Rammed" into the front, which makes the wing inflate, which in turn instead of just falling glides forward. This means it stays inflated.

      If you look at the picture, you can see the dude has two handles. These allow him to pull down on the tail of the parachute, and change the shape of the parachute, changing the angle of attack. Pulling the left one makes it turn left, because the right side is now in a steeper dive than the left is. Pulling the right one makes it turn right and pulling both flares the canopy, so that just before you hit the ground you can make it plane out and go that bit more horizontal (whilst losing speed - so it's possible to stall the parachute)

      a round parachute (aka the kind used on apollo etcetera to dump it in the sea is this)

      http://www.ukskydiving.com/images/round.jpg

      non-steerable.

  3. damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    four comments and slashdot effect already happening...

  4. Obligatory slashdotting joke by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Funny

    I dunno about the capsule, but their site spiralled down in flames and crashed before there was even a single comment.

  5. Article text in case of Slashdotting by Magic+Thread · · Score: 5, Informative

    Starchaser Industries have successfully completed two manned parachute drop tests of their NOVA 2 rocket capsule.

    The manned drop tests were carried out at the Red Lake drop zone in Arizona USA on the 22nd and 24th July 2003. The capsule was deployed from the rear cargo door of a Fairchild C123K aircraft at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

    The capsule was put through a number of manoeuvres during its descent to fully validate the steerable ram-air parachute canopy that made it possible to fly the craft like a glider. Nova 2 was then brought in for a precision landing. Steve Bennett, Managing Director of Starchaser Industries, said, "We are pleased with how the capsule has performed, we've completed two very successful flights. These drop tests mark a significant milestone in Starchaser Industries manned space programme. We have proved the different key systems in our rocket programme and now have the technology to push forward in our bid to win the X PRIZE"

    Weighing in at 250 kg and measuring 3-meters in length, the single seat Nova 2 capsule has become Britain's first manned rocket capsule and has been developed to test a variety of systems for use in project Thunderbird; Starchaser Industries entry into the US $10 million X PRIZE, which is on offer to the first non-governmental organisation capable of launching three people into space.

    Steve Bennett is available for comment following the success of the manned drop tests, video footage and digital stills are available, please contact Lee Kirby on 08700 278766288 or email lee@starchaser.co.uk

    1. Re:Article text in case of Slashdotting by madpierre · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Do I smell a Marvel Comics conspiracy ...

      I mean. Willyalookatdafacts:

      contact *Lee Kirby* , X prize.

      Sony owe Stan $10,000,000 (alledgedly).

      What's goin on here?

      --
      siggy played guitar
  6. Black Prince, eh? by Raul654 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "I'm telling you this guy is protected from up on high by the Prince of Darkness"

    --The Usual Suspects

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  7. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is yet another duplicate courtesy of the fine slashdot janitors. See the original story Here.

  8. Informative? What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please, next time check the link before you moderate.

    1. Re:Informative? What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It IS informative. That's really what they're doing down at NASA.

    2. Re:Informative? What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troof! NASA = National Ass Slammers Association

  9. Details by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone know how they plan to slow it from orbital speed to a speed where they and safely deploy the 'chute?

    This would seem to be the second hardest part. (Hardest being geting the thing orbial in the first place.)

    -Peter

    1. Re:Details by Chairboy · · Score: 1

      If you spent a little effort reading the article, you would understand that the X-Prize does not put someone in orbit, it's just about launching straight up to 100k and then coming down.

      If you completed high school, you should know that orbit involves traveling around 17 thousand miles per hour sideways.

    2. Re:Details by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Hm. Don't recall covering any of that in HS. Damn public schools.

      I re-read the article and don't see the info that you alluded to anywhere. Damn reading comprehesion skills.

      Anyway, since you are clearly an expert, will they just be able to deploy the 'chute at the apex of the flight? When you say 100k do you mean 100,000 ft? Seems like they could, since there is still a fair amount of atmosphere there.

      -Peter

    3. Re:Details by twostar · · Score: 1

      there isn't alot of air at that altitude compaired to sea level. 3.21e-5 slugs/ft^3 (.01786 kg/m^3) at 100k ft (~30km) compaired to .002377 slug/ft^3 (1.225 kg/m^3) at sea level I would think a droug chute would be used until they get to denser air. I would be worried about tangles on their control lines and static lines.

    4. Re:Details by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 1

      "The capsule was put through a number of manoeuvres during its descent to fully validate the steerable ram-air parachute canopy that made it possible to fly the craft like a glider."

      It sounds like it's a glider. I suppose it continues to glide for awhile, letting the atmosphere slow it down until the speed has been sufficiently reduced.

    5. Re:Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The page with details on the X-PRIZE says it's 100 km, which is a significant difference.

    6. Re:Details by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the rest of us for your education - high schools in Norway actualy covers the orbital mechanics as a special subset of the mechanics of movement if you pick natural sciences as one of your classes...

      Anyway, the X-price is a competition to build and launch a 'spaceship' carreing 3 people to a minimum height of 100 kilometer (abb. km or just k) twice in the course of two weeks. Deploying a chute while 62.5 miles up in the air isn't all that smart - either you'll rip the chute or use a long time and a lot of crossrange to get down - so some for of thermal protection system ought to be included in the design. Since we're not talking orbital speeds here, this needs to be much less beefy than for a spacecraft designed for fully orbital capacity. Initiall breaking of the capsule is likely to be aerodynamic - as the capsule plunges into the denser atmosphere the drag will increase and eitehr slow it down or at least limit the terminal velocity.

      For a more extrem take at the X-price, look at Micro Space, three guys in scubagear with parachutes...

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    7. Re:Details by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Troll

      They must not teach standard SI abbrivations at your fucking wiz-bang school.

      k = prefix meaning 1000 (kilo)
      m = linear unit meter
      km = linear unit kilometer

      I won't blame you for failing to detect the sarcasm, I understand that is very difficult do do in a non-native language.

      -Peter

    8. Re:Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, at 100,000 ft there is essentially NO atmosphere.

    9. Re:Details by The+Mayor · · Score: 1

      Which is why weather balloons and U2 spy aircraft have such a hard time flying to that altitude . 100,000 ft is not that high up. Really.

      --
      --Be human.
    10. Re:Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you don't know about the X prize because you've been stuck in a cave with radioactive gas for the past couple of years? /. has covered it many many times and with your ID being as low as it is...well otherwise you just forgot the craft won't be going orbital right?

    11. Re:Details by madpierre · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, it's called the ground. ........ SPLAT ... POP ... chute deployed. :-)

      --
      siggy played guitar
  10. Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod this down, it's a picture of some shemale sex.

  11. wow, that's really neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH MY GOD!

  12. Wrong by Magic+Thread · · Score: 3, Informative

    That story was about planning a test drop. This story describes how the test drop has been finished successfully.

  13. Just what we all need by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just what we all need,
    Another Thunderbird Project

    --
    Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    1. Re:Just what we all need by happyzathy · · Score: 1

      The Starchaser Thunderbird rocket has always been called that - Steve's a fan of the original Gerry Anderson series, and many of us were there when Steve met Gerry at FAB Cafe in Manchester a few years back.

      That said, the only SF spaceship other than the original Thunderbirds I've heard Steve ever rave about was the Whitestar from Babylon-5.

      Steve has always said (if memory serves) that they'd launch in 2004 (or earlier finances permitting), and I'm really pleased to see that he's continue to follow his dreams.

      Contrary to a number of slashdotters thoughts and comments, he *has* thought things through, and done the math. He knows full well which sort of rocket engines scale up and which don't. Earlier tests gaining experience were with simpler style rocket engines. Nova and it's ilk are using IIRC engines specifically designed for the task in hand. (Based on the presentation he gave at a fundraiser in Manchester which also had as a guest one of the ex-mir cosmonauts.

      Michael

    2. Re:Just what we all need by sprouty76 · · Score: 1
      The Starchaser Thunderbird rocket has always been called that - Steve's a fan of the original Gerry Anderson series, and many of us were there when Steve met Gerry at FAB Cafe in Manchester a few years back.

      Heh, I still chuckle when I think about the Starchaser rocket behind the bar there - they used to have a real one, then the transport to take it to the launch site broke down and several big guys had to carry it through the streets of Manchester / Salford.

      --

      No, I don't want a free iPod

  14. Thunderbird project? by shazbotus · · Score: 1

    Say, isnt that only in version 0.1? Well, if my mail client can survive a drop from an altitude of 10,000ft, I'll sure be using it for a long time. Oh...my mistake, I saw Thunderbird and mistaked it for Mozilla's up and coming mail client. So these guys didnt do the mail client deal, they are the ones with that speedy heate...er..processor, right? Right?... (So THATS why they call the processor a Space Heater, because these guys made it)

  15. N 2 Gether Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just STFU, hoe.

  16. More of this is needed by egg+troll · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm glad to see the private sector making advances in space flight. Personally, I don't believe this is an area that our government should be spending any money on. I know that this won't make me popular with the Slashdot crowd.


    However, there are other more important things that our government should be spending money upon. Education, health care and welfare programs are all vastly more important than space exploration. Space programs are a luxury, and in these tough economic times its a luxury that Americans should do without.


    The fact that this program was successful shows that the private sector can shoulder the spaceflight burden. Hopefully our government will recognize this and begin to shift funding to programs that are more worthy.

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
    1. Re:More of this is needed by schnarff · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you're saying the government should exit the spaceflight business altogether to save money during our current economic downturn, you're incorrect.

      The government actually makes money by launching commercial payloads into space -- how do you think all of those cell phone satellites, etc. get up there? Obviously, the program as a whole is a loss, thanks to wastes like the ISS; however, if the government were to drop research and simply operate as a commercial entity, launching private payloads, they could actually turn a profit.

      If laws were eased to the point that commercial entities could do the same -- currently, there are so many restrictions on launches as well as non-competitive agreements between those who need launch services and the government that private companies can't compete -- we'd end up with a thriving spaceflight/tourism industry, freeing the government to do real research projects with even less money than it spends now.

      Oh, and BTW, anyone who says that the space program is taking money away from poor people needs to check their facts first. The whole reason NASA is so underfunded is because its budget comes out of the Veterans Affiars/Housing & Urban Development (VA/HUD) Subcommittee, and every time they ask for more money, someone comes along with a "but you're taking money away from the poor children!" line, and the NASA budget gets slashed.

    2. Re:More of this is needed by LS · · Score: 1

      I agree that the government should not be involved in space flight, but I disagree that space flight is a luxury. Looking back at history, a specific technology always gets easier and cheaper to produce and is more distributed. Each moment that passes, another individual in the world has the capability to destroy the world through technological means. Eventually, dooms-day technology will be in enough hands that it will be statisticly inevitable that someone will [press the button]/[release the bacteria]/[destroy the atmosphere]/[etc], and it would be stupid to keep all our eggs in one basket.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    3. Re:More of this is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and BTW, anyone who says that the space program is taking money away from poor people needs to check their facts first. The whole reason NASA is so underfunded is because its budget comes out of the Veterans Affiars/Housing & Urban Development (VA/HUD) Subcommittee, and every time they ask for more money, someone comes along with a "but you're taking money away from the poor children!" line, and the NASA budget gets slashed.

      Ummmm... Don't the facts say that it is indeed the case? If NASA didn't exsist money would flow back into the programs you mentioned (NASA may be underfuneded but it is funded). OTOH if NASA got it's money from the Department of defence for example, this could not be said as the pool of money it is drawing from doesn't fund social programs.

    4. Re:More of this is needed by jeff+munkyfaces · · Score: 1

      yes private sector space flight is great, but i think you underestimate how important space exploration will be in the (not to distant) future, what with the way the planet is currently going. (pollution, global nuclear disaster, running out of unrenewable resources) the sooner we have colonies seperate from earth the better. Who knows what could happen to it. also, i think your defence budget probably has a lot more to do with the tough economic times than nasa. i think it will be a long time before your government shifts money away from _that_ cause.

  17. Thunderbird the rocket? by pajama · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thunderbird the rocket or Thunderbird the mail client?

    Phoenix the browser or the database?

    Mozilla the browser or ,er , neverimind.

    1. Re:Thunderbird the rocket? by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and naming something after someone is considered flattery as well. With all that, why can't we just politely refer to things as the Thunderbird [Browser, Rocket, Whatever], and not squabble over who gets the cool names?

  18. Launch Date? by SuperDuG · · Score: 1
    Okay I have a few questions here.

    1.) Can you get insurance, both life and rocket insurance for this type of amateur space travel?

    2.) What if they get stuck in space and can't re-enter orbit safely, is NASA/Russia going to make a rescue attempt?

    3.) If they do make it and then land, does this mean that it is of course more than possible for any average joe to go to space?

    4.) What's next, M-Prize, first man to mars and back?

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    1. Re:Launch Date? by twostar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1.) You can get insurance for anything, the Premiums may be a little high though.

      2.) They aren't going into orbit so there is no way to get stuck. It's a simple projectile trajectory, up and down like a cannon ball.

      3.) That's the point of the X-Prize.

      4.) We can only hope!

    2. Re:Launch Date? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) If you pay the expenses. In case of NASA this might be hundreds of millions.

    3. Re:Launch Date? by Erick+the+Red · · Score: 1

      1.) Can you get insurance, both life and rocket insurance for this type of amateur space travel?

      Insurance is only a way of evenly distributing the cost of damages across a group. If 1000 people buy house insurance and one house gets burned down at a cost of $200 000, the insurance pays for the damage with the $200 it collected from each homeowner. If only one rocket gets launched into space and crashes/burns at a cost of $1 million........

      --

      DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

      ok
    4. Re:Launch Date? by ameoba · · Score: 1

      With these one off/rare things, it's really more of a high-stakes gamble; Assuming this $1M rocket has a 10% chance of catastrophic failure, taking $100k in premiums would allow you to 'break-even' on the deal. Charging 'break-even' rates for a 15% chance of failure gives you something for your trouble.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  19. Warning bells. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd thought the name sounded familiar.

    Isn't this the same Steve Bennett who was planning to launch his X-prize rocket on what amounted to the same kind of engines used by the high-power model rocket community, despite the community trying to tell him that they wouldn't scale the way he wants them to? The guy who was prevented from doing further launch tests because he set the firing range he was using on fire? The guy who was ripped apart in the last three articles about him for not having an adequate understanding of what he's doing?

    This does not bode well for his scheduled launch attempt.

    1. Re:Warning bells. by Centurion509 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Those incidents you refer to were all several years ago. Starchaser has definitely improved its reputation since then, for its three recent major accomplishments in the last 24 months have all been positive:
      37-ft. Nova rocket blasts off!
      Churchill liquid engine test success
      Nova II capsule test drop success
      The next few months will be very exciting. Starchaser plans to integrate all three of the above accomplishments in one project: the manned launch of the Nova rocket -- outfitted with the new Churchill engines -- carrying the Nova II capsule as payload!

    2. Re:Warning bells. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > Those incidents you refer to were all several years ago.

      No they weren't. I know some guys who went up to one of his open days, his last launch of his Nova apparently used a cluster of Aerotech M-class or similar motors they said, and the guys who went along to his open day, and who are rocketry enthusiasts themselves, said "yeah right" he's still using a cluster of solids by the looks of it. These guys are HPR people, so they have some clues.

      > Starchaser has definitely improved its reputation since then,

      Really? The word in the UK rocketry community is that he has apparently threatened to sue some UK rocketry people who dared to tell the truth about the technical shortcomings he has had. I'll check with the guys who went to his open day, they seemed to know a whole bunch.

      > for its three recent major accomplishments in the last 24 months have all been positive:

      They said (rather amusingly), that the liquid engine was probably just about good enough for clearing weeds, and not much else.

      This capsule drop test - looks a bit like a powered parafoil trike with an airframe around it, doesn't it ?

      Burt Rutan and John Carmack are no doubt, not exactly losing sleep at this point.

    3. Re:Warning bells. by Centurion509 · · Score: 1

      >his last launch of his Nova apparently used a cluster of Aerotech M-class or similar motors

      That's correct, he used solids -- but only for that launch in 2001 . If you look at the Starchaser web-site, the Nova launch was to verify the airframe, electronics, recovery, etc. You can think of the solid engines as a one-time crutch to get the rocket off the ground. Now that the more powerful liquids are ready, the next Nova launch will be equipped with those.

      >...he has apparently threatened...I'll check with the guys who went to his open
      day, they seemed to know a whole bunch.

      Wow, that does sound bad. If you find out more, please tell me.

      >They said (rather amusingly), that the liquid engine was probably just about good enough for clearing weeds, and not much else.

      Looking at the press release, "the liquid oxygen/kerosene powered system generated 2,200 kilograms (app. 4,800 pounds) of thrust for 15 seconds...Starchaser plans to continue testing the Churchill Mark 2, for longer periods of time." That's hardly a mere weed whacker. In fact, I think Carmack's main engine is about the same thrust too (and Carmack hasn't even test fired it, due to lack of peroxide).

      >This capsule drop test - looks a bit like a powered parafoil trike with an airframe around it, doesn't it?

      I'm not quite sure how appearance matters, as long as it works. And it does work, Starchaser claims.

      >Burt Rutan and John Carmack are no doubt, not exactly losing sleep at this point.

      Well, of course not. Rutan and Carmack will definitely beat Bennett. But that doesn't mean Bennett won't ever fly -- he will.

    4. Re:Warning bells. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's correct, he used solids -- but only for that launch in 2001 .

      No, if you look, you see all his rockets used solids.

      > If you look at the Starchaser web-site, the Nova launch was to verify the airframe, electronics, recovery, etc.

      He says that every time though. Even I can see that, and I've just got the newspapers to go on.

      > Wow, that does sound bad. If you find out more, please tell me.

      Just spoke to one of the guys, and they say apparently, he legally threatened a few prominent people in the UK rocketry community to shut up or else - it's stirred up a right hornet's nest apparently. I wouldn't have thought it will reflect well on him.

      > Looking at the press release, "the liquid oxygen/kerosene powered system generated 2,200 kilograms (app. 4,800 pounds) of thrust for 15 seconds...Starchaser plans to continue testing the Churchill Mark 2, for longer periods of time." That's hardly a mere weed whacker.

      Sorry, my mistake. When I spoke to them, I clarified this, and what they meant was it was very inefficient and badly designed in their opinion, which is why they said it wasn't much use for anything other than clearing weeds or for publicity stunts.

      >>This capsule drop test - looks a bit like a powered parafoil trike with an airframe around it, doesn't it?

      > I'm not quite sure how appearance matters, as long as it works.

      It matters a great deal. There's a difference between throwing something out of an aircraft at 10,000 feet and launching it into space I would have thought.

      > And it does work, Starchaser claims.

      Lots of people make lots of claims. Doesn't mean they're true :-)

      I mean, I could call the press, and claim I've solved the world's energy problems. Doesn't mean I have though.

      > But that doesn't mean Bennett won't ever fly -- he will.

      Once.

    5. Re:Warning bells. by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      John Carmack et al. are abandoning the hard-to-get peroxide fuel and going for a mixed monoprop system. They have had some success recently:
      We are really psyched about these results. The odds are looking very good that this will be the propulsion system for the X-Prize vehicle. Cheaper, higher performance, and no availability problems. Big wins.

      So it looks like they'll be getting propellant soon. And anyway, check out some of the cool pictures!

    6. Re:Warning bells. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I've been to a Starchaser open day too and was actually pretty impressed. The Nova rocket is the largest ever launched from the UK, altitude limited by UK authorities rather than technology, and as far as I can tell, Starchaser are the only people to carry out manned drop tests. The engines also seemed pretty impressive, and the pictures on their web site are awesome. I'd like to know why these so-called rocketry enthusiasts are so anti starchaser, and a bit more information about exactly what they think starchaser are getting wrong would be good. Incidentally, Starchaser have a forum on their website where you can ask techie questions and so far the answers have all held water.

  20. This story officially belongs to the trolls by rkz · · Score: 0, Troll

    31 of the comments posted thus far, out of 34 are either trolls, flames or offtopic.

    It's official slashbots are dying. Trolls are winning the war!
    Insert that in your stretched anus G.W.Taco and your war on trollarism.

  21. Re:FLAMEBAIT BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TOW THE SLASHDOT L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, its a really sensible argument that space is too expensive, so let private industry (which has to make a profit to survive) do it.

  22. Hmmm. Bouncy ride? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    From their website:
    Our project is aimed squarely at winning the X-Prize and not in the first instance about ferrying truckloads of people into space. Truckloads of people? So, they gonna stack'em like boxes and shove them into space???
  23. economics of rewarding by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it really easier to design and build a craft to take you 100 miles above the earth and return safely than it is to track down Saddam?

    You get 35 million for Saddam, only 10 million for turning into a shooting star.

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
    1. Re:economics of rewarding by msgmonkey · · Score: 1

      Well considering the US is spending something like $1 billion a week occupying Iraq if capturing/killing Saddam shortens their stay by just one day than it works out quite cheap.

      However this is a big if, capturing Saddamn may not make any difference what-so-ever.

    2. Re:economics of rewarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You get 35 million for Saddam, only 10 million for turning into a shooting star. Ok.. for the X prize you need to launch, land, and re-launch within 2 weeks (IIRC). So, use the second flight to land the launcher on Saddam, and triple yer prize money.

    3. Re:economics of rewarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And at this point, you get 40 million in contributions for starting wars around the world and letting the economy plummet.

    4. Re:economics of rewarding by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      Yep. And since they plan to stay there over a year, that'd be more than the 10 to 40 Billion we need to get an elevator up and running and trash the rocket engines concept altogether.

      At least that was what the US government would be doing if getting people in space was what it really wanted to do.

      Frankly, if I'd been ruling the world, I'd shift technology, research and humanity as a whole into high gear _BEFORE_ salvaging Iraq and removing Saddam's testacles, but hey, that's just me.

      --
      -
    5. Re:economics of rewarding by madpierre · · Score: 2, Funny

      1 ... capture Sadman.
      2 ... borrow WMD/scud from Sadman.
      3 ... use WMD/scud to win x-prize.
      4 ... profit $45,000,000

      Sadman would make a good test 'pilot'. (no need for a chute) :-)

      --
      siggy played guitar
    6. Re:economics of rewarding by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      Frankly, if I'd been ruling the world, I'd shift technology, research and humanity as a whole into high gear _BEFORE_ salvaging Iraq and removing Saddam's testacles, but hey, that's just me.

      It's not just you. It's me, too. Frankly, I don't care about what happens to Saddam Houssein (sp?). He can just rot for the rest of his life, assuming he isn't dead yet, as a washed-up has-been whom everybody hates. If I were ruling the world, I'd scrap the FAA regulations that are one of the biggest obstacles to provate spaceflight. Armadillo, for example, tried to get permission to fly into space from the FAA. The schedule the FAA gave them had them launching after the X-Prize expired!

  24. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...man-rocket test drops you!!

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What is it going to take before you people realise?

      Soviet Russia jokes were never funny

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough, I beg you.

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you're a harsh critic of such jokes. But that's okay, because in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia jokes criticise YOU!

    4. Re:In Soviet Russia... by madpierre · · Score: 1

      jokes not meant be funny.

      --
      siggy played guitar
  25. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link contains very good information and pictures.

    Thanks!

  26. Re:FLAMEBAIT BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TOW THE SLASHDOT L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, his nick is "egg troll". Even if you agree with him, scoring his post as flaimbait or troll is accurate.

  27. How handy by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    Article text in case of Slashdotting

    Yeah, because after all, nobody wanted to see the pictures, right? :-)

    1. Re:How handy by Magic+Thread · · Score: 1

      The pictures didn't load in time, only the text.

  28. optimistic & redundant by madpierre · · Score: 3, Funny

    The name Starchaser is a bit optimistic.
    How about ... LEOlimper.

    So far all they've done is chuck it off the back of a plane.

    Anyway to get the 10 megabucks the thing only has to be

    capable of launching three people into space.

    No mention of gettin em back :-) so a parachute is somewhat redundant.

    Now where can i find three volunteers????

    --
    siggy played guitar
    1. Re:optimistic & redundant by Bishop923 · · Score: 1

      (Yes I know this was a joke)

      IIRC The X-Prize goes to the team that can launch three people into space, bring them back(intact), and be able to launch again in under 2 weeks.

      Though it would be fun to be able to shoot three idiots into space and leave them there...

  29. looming disaster? by fihzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's one thing for a little team to build a narrow electric car where the government spent billions and failed, but another entirely to do sub orbital flights where the resources of NASA are still not enough to prevent tragedies like the shuttle accidents. Serious life loss is surely imminent, but the most ironic thing of all is that even if some people do make it up and down again, it can surely never lead to actual orbital flights as the engineering and physics problems associated with getting in an out of the atmosphere really do need astronomical resources to solve?

    Being from the little town where Bennet is from

    1. Re:looming disaster? by thaig · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You can't say that its

      • a) too unambitious because it's suborbital and
      • b) too difficult for anyone to attempt even 41 years after Gargarin went up in his big firework
      at the same time. Which argument are you going to choose?
      --
      This is all just my personal opinion.
  30. Thunderbird Project is moving along quite nicely by FrankoBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    In fact, five prototypes have already been used for quite a while now.

  31. My money's still on Rutan by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My money is still on the Rutan boys and their Scaled Composites entry.

    They're the only ones who have shown credible progress in respect to actually getting a craft flying towards the heavens. Most of the other X-Prize entrants are either playing with models or dreaming :-)

    1. Re:My money's still on Rutan by KFK+-+Wildcat · · Score: 1

      Progress like the message on their frontpage ?

    2. Re:My money's still on Rutan by merdark · · Score: 1

      My money is on Canadian Arrow. In addition to being from my country, they have already test fired their engines, the most important part of a rocket. The Rutan boys could work, but no one has ever done what they are trying. The rocket approach is tried and true.

    3. Re:My money's still on Rutan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but no one has ever done what they are trying

      Wrong. NASA's X-15 program in the 1950s-60s did what Rutan is trying now.

    4. Re:My money's still on Rutan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with the X-prize?

    5. Re:My money's still on Rutan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything.

      In any event, I wonder why ./ didn't report this story. And notice, how they put a grafic up, preventing google et al from indexing the text. Stupid or malicous?

    6. Re:My money's still on Rutan by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      My money is on somebody winning. As long as somebody wins, I will be happy. And anyway, a little competition is good, too. If the Rutan fellows succeed after, say, Canadian Arrow has already won, that will be pretty cool, too.

    7. Re:My money's still on Rutan by merdark · · Score: 1

      Aw yeah, I hope they all succeed. :)

    8. Re:My money's still on Rutan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Everything.

      Care to explain? I still don't see why this totally screws Scaled Composites and their bid for the X-prize (as you seem to imply).

  32. XPRIZE Guidelines by thaig · · Score: 1
    No, they have to be safely returned together with the entire space vehicle. See rule 5 below or take a look at the full X-PRIZE Guidelines.

    5. The crew must return to the Earth's surface from both flights in good health as reasonably defined and judged by the X PRIZE Review Board. The flight vehicle must return from both flights substantially intact, as defined by and in the sole judgment of the X PRIZE Review Board, such that the vehicle is reusable.

    --
    This is all just my personal opinion.
    1. Re:XPRIZE Guidelines by madpierre · · Score: 1

      I still prefer my plan.
      After all it says x-prize *guidelines* ;-)
      Guidelines are pretty flexible, forget all the nasty engineering stuff.
      Slip the judging panel 50 bucks and a bottle of bourbon each, problem solved.
      That still leaves about $9,999,750 in prize money for the taking.

      Now where can i find three volunteers?

      --
      siggy played guitar
  33. $10 Million is not a lot by thaig · · Score: 1

    It's not a huge reward and that's good because it means that the people who win it will have to have a business plan for their launcher afterwards.

    This is not about breaking a record as much as it is about encouraging people to turn space access into a commercial proposition.

    --
    This is all just my personal opinion.
  34. What's the problem? by duvel · · Score: 1

    I really don't see any difficulties in conducting manned drop-tests from 10.000 feet. I mean, anyone can drop from 10.000 feet. There's no problem there.

    Unless of course if you're supposed to live through it. That may be somewhat more difficult.

    --

    I have a photographic memory for numbers. I know almost a hundred of them.

  35. Ah, the memories... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... all of a sudden, they're back...

    All those previous experiences of UK in space:

    - Fireball XL-5
    - Thunderbird 1
    - U.F.O.
    - Space 1999

    BTW, if you're going to settle on the Moon, don't build a nucular reactor... it go bum!

  36. Confusing name by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    That Thunderbird project can be confused with say the Mozilla mail client. Another name would be better, "Firebird" for instance.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  37. Cancelled due to the snigger value by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    I mean, this was the seventies, all those culture changes, people might suddenly get entirely different ideas from seeing a huge cylindrical object labeled "black prince".

  38. ram those foils .. by savuporo · · Score: 2, Informative

    For people who had somequestion mark in place of "ram-air parafoils.."

    "ram-air parafoils" are nothing but a regular recantgular parachute canopies that are used every day in regular skydiving sports ( ive used one exactly 33 times and its been working like charm :) )

    It flies like a regular airplane wing, just that the lifting profile isnt fixed. The wing is "open" in front, and the airflow makes the wing "rigid". Thats the general principle anyways. You steer it with pulling the "brakes" on one or other side of the wing, "brakes" are simply the after left and right parts of the wing, that can be pulled down via "steering ropes".
    The one that Starchaser is using is obviously somewhat larger than your average skydiver canopy. Beginners canopies measure up to 240sq ft and are rated for average 80-kg person. So if NOVA capsule weighs 250kg+pilot, the canopy must be at least three-four times larger.

    And now some general X-Prize remarks. For anyone who is still not getting it: X-prize is not directly aimed at replacing Soyuzes and Shuttles, so none of the contenders is going to orbit, just a suborbital "hop" to 100km's of altitude. Why 100 ? Because thats where internationally agreed boundaries of space begin at. So X-prize passengers will officially be astronauts, the league up until now open to select few of government employees
    X-prize and its followup X-prize Cup ( a "rocket NASCAR" ) are hoped to revolutize the private spaceflight industry.

    hint: X-prize has its own messageboards @ http://www.xprize.org/messageboard that could actually use some slashdotting.

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    1. Re:ram those foils .. by savuporo · · Score: 1

      Oh and more on canopies, Starchaser actually tested their canopy before with driving a ATV out of the cargo plane. The story and images can be found here Thats what i'd call an "extreme debugging".

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  39. Triumph Thunderbird by MZdoctor · · Score: 1

    All Thunderbirds are dedicated to the memory of the Truimph Thunderbird motorcycle of the 1950's.

  40. Another group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another group going into space is:

    Amateur Spaceflight Association
    ASA

    looks like theirs is for payloads into suborbit

  41. My Prediction? Success, then nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My predition is that someone will succeed (probably Rutan) and then nothing. No regular flights, no blossoming of a new industry, nothing. Why? Where are all those people lining up to take the Russians up on their offer? The Russians won't just put you into a five minute ballistic flight, they can get you into orbit and they've been doing so for thirty-forty years. Again, where are all those people that supposedly will pay big bucks for this ride?
    They're not showing up because the supposed market doesn't exist or otherwise we'd be hearing about weekly launches by the Russians.