Build Your Own Saturn V

Illbay writes "Space.com has a great story about a company in Colorado that has introduced an incredibly detailed scale model of the Saturn V rocket booster that flies a lot like the real thing! Apogee Components has "taken the time to research the actual vehicles and then used that information correctly in creating the kits," with a scientist from the team that designed the Delta 2 rocket on staff. I remember the old Estes model rocket version of the Saturn V back in the 60s, but they were not very detailed and very difficult to get to fly properly. Looks like Apogee might have a winner."

Comments

The message is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

model rocketry has failed!

Re:The message is clear

[Trioge]

Now if only they made a version large enough for the Rocket Guy to fit inside. He could launch himself into the Darwin Awards in style!

Scale

[momerath2003]

Standing more than 62 inches (1.6 meters) tall and weighing about three pounds (1.4 kilograms) at launch, the most detailed reproduction of a Saturn 5 readily available today is 1/70th the size and 1/2,166,666th the weight of the original.

"It's just a matter of scale as far as the rockets are concerned. The laws of physics don't change,"

Try telling that to a 2-atom-wide model rocket.

The laws of physics are a tad different on the quantum scale. ;-)

Re:Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't build a scale model with only 2 atoms so this point is moot.

Re:Scale

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

You couldn't build a scale model with only 2 atoms so this point is moot.

You could build a pretty nice planetary model with 2 atoms though. Even with only one in fact.

Re:Scale

[drinkypoo]

The question is, how many atoms in size does your model have to have before you have something recognizable as a Saturn V, whose design can carry out all the basic functions of a Saturn V? We're talking about multiple stages of rocket here, with propellant, and so on. (The site is pretty slow so I'm not interested in all the details.) The model uses solid rocket engines, so your model can too within the purposes of this question.

The model might end up being less than 100 atoms across, though I doubt it. I'm guessing at least 500. Still quite small enough to make it a considerably different game than the larger rockets... But a question whose answer I am genuinely interested in. Anyone having tea with drexler tomorrow?

Re:Scale

[JabberWokky]

You could build a pretty nice planetary model with 2 atoms though. Even with only one in fact.

No, you can't. I won't Bohr you with the details of why you're wrong (or at least about 50 years out of date).

--
Evan

Re:Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

wooOOSH

That was the sound of the guy's joke going right over your head.

Re:Scale

[emok]

The laws of physics don't change with scale, but their relative importance does change. For example the (surface area / volume) ratio of a real Saturn V is much lower than the model. Therefore aerodynamic drag on the smaller model will be more significant.

Re:Scale

[D-Cypell]

Try telling that to a 2-atom-wide model rocket.

Next time I see one... you have my word!

Re:Scale

[Buran]

But on the Rutherford hand ... the atom model on the Greek 10-drachma piece was rather spiffy lookin'.

Re:Scale

[pVoid]

It's just a matter of scale as far as the rockets are concerned. The laws of physics don't change

The laws might not change, but the constants in the equations do. Specifically, air is much 'more viscous' for a model, after all, if the model is 1/70th the scale, then the atmospehere it's going in should be 1/70th of a bar.

Also the drag coefficient of everything doesn't scale properly. It's really a question of scalability, and I think the IT crowd of all people should understnad that.

Re:Scale

[bm_luethke]

Well, you can blame that one on our crappy educational system. The only reason I heard anything other than Bohr's model outside of college chemistry is because I had an AP chemistry teacher that cared.

One of the worst things our US educational system (and maybe others, I don't know) do is teach theories and models that are *known* to be out of date as The Way Things Are. Especially when the most current accepted theory isn't any more difficult.

Re:Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

What can you expect from a system that allows religious teachings (like creationism) in the school?

Re:Scale

[JabberWokky]

wooOOSH!

And that was the sound of *my* joke going right over your head (hint: electrons don't orbit - in fact, they don't move in the classic macroscopic sense. That's why the whole "nucleus with the electrons orbiting around it", i.e., the Bohr model, has been abandoned for many decades now. Thus a single atom is *not* a model of the solar system).

Sigh. I had to explain it. I knew I would. And the guy who got it and corrected you by pointing out that I misspelled 'Bore' is now moderated -1, Troll.

--
Evan

Re:Scale

[iCat]

... it's the way you Teller 'em

Re:Scale

[Glock27]

The model might end up being less than 100 atoms across, though I doubt it. I'm guessing at least 500. Still quite small enough to make it a considerably different game than the larger rockets... But a question whose answer I am genuinely interested in. Anyone having tea with drexler tomorrow?

If the intent is to have a flyable model rocket, with any appreciable range, it will have to be considerably bigger than 500 atoms. It will have to contain considerable fuel and reaction mass, and it will also have to be structurally sound enough to contain the reaction or compressed gas.

Also note the relationship between rocket size and total impulse. A Saturn V can get a large payload to escape velocity. An optimally constructed 3 foot scale model could perhaps get a tiny payload 5,000 ft. (I doubt it, especially if it staged like the original). The rate that the interior volume drops versus the surface area (cube-square law) is too much to overcome. Also, if you fly it in air, friction will become a dominant force at small scale sizes.

Size does matter. ;-)

I'm guessing the smallest Saturn V model that could get even a few rocket-lengths into the air would be visible to the naked eye.

Re:Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, you all seem to be overly concerned about how atom really work. The reason they teach outdated models is that they are still useful. For example when studing metal crystal structures, you can think of them as hard spheres. Other effects such as metal electron sharing and occupied anti-bonding orbitals can be ignored.

The atom isn't something you can describe perfectly with any model becasue it isn't a planetyary system or any of what you said. It's an atom and we can only try to describe it in certain ways.

Re:Scale

[Paracelcus]

I won't Niels you with the details ;-)...

Very interesting

[edmz]

I'm not much of a fan of rockets nor space flying history, but this quote from the saturn 5 page got me quite interested:

The sound waves could easily pulverize a human's skeleton if he was unlucky enough to be within a mile of the launch pad. Even at further distances, the sound waves felt like someone was thumping on your chest with their fists.

Re:Very interesting

[pi eater]

So that's what that was!

I thought I was just closing in on a rave...

geek gear

Re:Very interesting

[EvanED]

Yep. As with the Shuttle launches, the noise is actually what makes the safe distance 3 miles, not anything having to do with the rocket exhaust.

Re:Very interesting

[roystgnr]

The sound waves could easily pulverize a human's skeleton if he was unlucky enough to be within a mile of the launch pad.

Ummm... they do know the Saturn V launched manned missions, right?

Re:Very interesting

[Deadstick]

Yes, and the crews had quite a bit of metal between them and the engines. rj

Re:Very interesting

[Deadstick]

Last time I was at the Cape, tour guides there were still telling people with a straight face that the local birds, snakes and alligators had all learned to tell when a big launch was coming up and would clear out in time.

rj

Re:Very interesting

[mraymer]

In fact, according to History Channel's show Modern Marvels, the only man-made sound louder than a Saturn V at liftoff is the detonation an atomic bomb.

Re:Very interesting

[EvanED]

Birds at least vacate the area; they have warning whistles around the launch site that go off a couple minutes prior to launch. Other small animals burrow.

Re:Very interesting

[Zeinfeld]

Yep. As with the Shuttle launches, the noise is actually what makes the safe distance 3 miles, not anything having to do with the rocket exhaust.

Actually its only 363 feet or so vertically - you should be safe in the capsule on the top of the damn thing without getting pulverized.

Re:Very interesting

[KD5YPT]

Actually the metal contributes very little. The noise from the launch is actually pressure wave created by the engine of the rocket, which would creat a pressure wave focused towards the tail end of the rocket. So people on the ground will get effected the most as the rocket took off, and very little pressure wave was emitted towards the astronauts.

Re:Very interesting

[pVoid]

There you go, just one more reason why I'm baffled to hear people get struck by lightning and survive. If not the 50 thousand volts, wouldn't the sound at least hurt them??

Baffles me I tell ya.

Re:Very interesting

[twiddlingbits]

There are at least two errors in your post. 1) Safe distance has nothing to do with Sound at all, it's the maximum range of the debris pattern at ground level if it blew up on the pad. 2) The Saturn V launch was close to 200db, while thats VERY VERY loud, its not going to kill you. It's not as loud as say a 155mm howitzer, but its louder than most jets. Think standing at the end of the runway and see a jumbo jet taking off and then add a bit. 200db WILL make you stone deaf but it won't kill you. NASA also had the exhaust of the Saturn V channeled down under the Pad and massive water Jets also sprayed the pad to keep it cool and it also reduced the sound levels. I have observed (and heard) a SSME on a Test Stand from about 300 yards away and that was insanely loud but there was not any noise dampening and I can still hear fine . But the SSMEs are not nearly the thrust of a Saturn V (393,800 pounds per each SSME vs 1.5 Million for a F-1 (of which there are 5 on a Saturn V)). Calculating acoustics effects is complicated; the level at a given distance depends on many details, such as source power and size, frequency, wavefront form, and humidity (higher humidity dampens sound faster..at the Cape it is VERY humid). Three miles sounds like an exaggeration, and without any reference data it cannot be verified.

Re:Very interesting

[PingXao]

Dude, I was there 2 weeks ago. We spent 3 days there and took the regular bus tour PLUS the 2 specialty tours. None of the 3 tour guides we had said anything remotely like that. They did mention that KSC is surrounded by the Merit Island National Wildlife Refuge, and remarked often on the large number of species that call it home. But at no time did we hear anything as ridiculous as that.

We actuatlly saw the bald eagle (and not just its nest), quite a few 'gators, some burrowing tortoises and quite a few vultures. The only animals in for a surprise will be the 2-year olds who get to experience their first Space Shuttle launch in another 14 months or so.

Re:Very interesting

[bacon-kidney-pie]

How do they actually work out how much sound would pulverise a human skeleton? I bet Nasa has a whole file on that.

Re:Very interesting

[EvanED]

[This is to the other reply as well]

I'm not saying that the 3 mi is the minimum safe distance for hearing a launch. I'm just saying that 3 mi is the distance NASA determined to be the cutoff for spectators to be, who don't have any reason to be close other than to say "ooo, that looks cool." This distance was set, according to the tour guide I had at KSC at any rate, by acoustic levels at launch. (IIRC; I didn't actually verify the distance, but that's what I remember anyway.)

Re:Very interesting

[Rxke]

Have to ask the obvious: what about the astronauts themselves? How are they protected?

Re:Very interesting

[imsabbel]

200db is a energy density of about 100 MW/m^2.

This will kill you in a few milliseconds.
140db->deaf after a hour or so
160db->deaf at once
180db->danger of internal injurie, blood vessel ruptures, ect
200db-> RIP
This ofcource is only true if this noise level is reached where you are. If the 200db are 1meter below the thrusters, and you are 250m away, you may only get 150or so and still be alive and kicking.

Re:Very interesting

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Lighning is rather more than "50 thousand volts". A typical strike can deliver tens of millions of volts at tens of thousands of amperes (typically 25,000 to 30,000). People are hurt by the sound of a strike - punctured eardrums and even inner-ear damage can occur among people close to a strike, but the actual force a lightning strike can exert on the body is nowhere near the same league as a rocket engine or bomb blast. Lightning involves the extremely short-term ionisation of a fairly thin channel of air, the blast from it isn't really all that big. On the other hand, a rocket or bomb blast is putting the air under thousands or millions of pounds of pressure for a relatively sustained period.

Re:Very interesting

[twiddlingbits]

Wrong, just plain wrong..Its the frequency that can be harmful not the loudness at the db levels you state.See this web site http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/153_sonicweap ons.shtml There is a LOT of misinformation out there. If 140 Db kills in a few hours you there would be a lot of dead airline ramp workers, and race car team members. Sound energy dissapates rapidly. Below is the conclusion drawn by the above reference site (I know the S-V was not a weapon but the db/frequency info in the paper is what I am referencing) So sonic weapons, even those employing ultrasound and infrasound, would only work over very short distances and, rather than resulting in the kinds of psychological or physical effects claimed by conspiracy-heads or military nuts, would probably just cause serious and permanent hearing damage. Altmann had found no evidence that human targets would be rendered incapable of action by being severely spooked or losing physical control: "I have found no hard evidence for vomiting or uncontrolled defecation, even at levels of 170 dB or more." So sonic weapons, despite the oft-repeated claims, would most likely be large, cumbersome, close-range devices resulting in ruptured eardrums.

Re:Very interesting

[imsabbel]

Are you **** reading what i am writing?
I said the sound level at the POSITION OF THE EFFECTED PERSON counts.
Else i could say: What, a rocket makes noise? I havent heard the sound here in germany, so it cant be loud....

And there is a certain way to gauge the physical loudness of sound: db. 1bell=log(P/10^-12W/m^2), meaning at 10db, you have 10^-12 w/m^2, at 120db 1W/w^2 (cant effect your body).
And if the air around your body has 200db, then it has 100MW/m^2 energy density. Thnink about what happens if even 1/1000 of this actually is absorbed in you body....

And Sonic weapons: Its really damn hard to create 200dB. Its a fucking lot of power. You can get it with strong rockets, or really large laboratory equimpent. Like banging a multi ton steel plate against another with>100m/s to create a shockwave.

So all of these are uneffective because they dont have enough power output. You would need a nuklear power plant to sustain the requirements, OR A FUCKING LARGE ROCKET

Re:Very interesting

[Deadstick]

Yabbut a lot of that sound gets reflected up from the ground before the bird starts to move.

rj

Re:Very interesting

[pipingguy]

200db-> RIP

On an almost-related note regarding the possible future use of military technology audio, apparently the inventor of the world's funniest and lethal joke has disappeared and is assumed to be working for terrorist organizations. Be careful what you listen to, people, this could happen to you!

Re:Very interesting

[Tablizer]

200db-> RIP

So it *is* possible to literally be nagged to death

Re:Very interesting

[Basehart]

Anyone know where I can get high definition recordings of either of these sources?

I know there are recordings of several surface atomic explosions floating around out there, and I also heard someone was planning on making a high definition recording of a Space Shuttle launch, but I lost track of who it was and what happened to the recording.

Re:Very interesting

[Silverfish]

Actually its only 363 feet or so vertically - you should be safe in the capsule on the top of the damn thing without getting pulverized.

This is only because the shuttle's launch system sprays massive amounts of water a few feet above the launch pad to diffuse the sound reflected from the ground. Without this system, the sound waves reflecting up from the launch pad would destroy the shuttle.

Here's a link with more info: Sound Suppression Water System

Re:Very interesting

[twiddlingbits]

10**4 W/m2 = 160 dB 10**6 W/m2 = 200 db If you were a few meters away 200 db could kill you, but back off to 20 meters and you just get a very loud sound that hurts your ears since sound decreases as the square of the distance. Its the compressed air pressure wave from the sound that kills you anyhow,you wouldn't hear a thing. A The point is that no one is standing that close to a rocket engine anyway. The safe distance for a launch is due to the estimated debris field if there was an explosion not sound.

Re:Very interesting

[yanagasawa]

> felt like someone was thumping on your chest with their fists

I stood on top of a school bus approximately 4 miles from the launch of apollo 11 ("One small step...."). I can personally attest that the sound was this loud . When the ignition started, it was the loudest sound I'd ever heard, then it got louder, and louder and louder. I literally almost fell off the bus.

Re:Very interesting

[imsabbel]

thats true, but all those 200db cant kill you people were anoying.
Hey, if you calculate how much energy you would need to keep a sound level of 160 db in 1km distance- it would be REALLY REALLY much

Re:Very interesting

[pratthobbies]

I was at the launch of Apollo 14, in the press gallery, which is as close as they let any unprotected humans get (sort of tells you how valuable they thought reporters were, eh?). At that distance it was knocking over camera tripods right and left, and the blast blew my tie off. You could see the first shock wave ripple across the barge turning pond. There will never be anything like a Saturn V again.

World's first

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Standing more than 62 inches (1.6 meters) tall and weighing about three pounds (1.4 kilograms) at launch, the most detailed reproduction of a Saturn 5 readily available today is 1/70th the size and 1/2,166,666th the weight of the original.

"It's small step for man, a giant step for Mini Me" -- Dr. Evil

Re:World's first

[Tablizer]

reproduction of a Saturn 5 readily available today is 1/70th the size and 1/2,166,666th the weight of the original.......a giant step for Mini Me

Now, who is gonna build a Mini Moon 1/70th the original? Maybe just tow in an asteroid and paint it like the moon. Mini Jupiter is gonna be tougher.

what a troll

[segment]

And I was getting all hot under the collar thinking about maybe pulling up in my model Vue tomorrow with 24's spinning, music flaring, DVD's behind the sear in a pimperrific three piece fohsachee suit, and you're talking about a rocket.

I thought you meant the car damnit

Not for long

[igabe]

URGENT NEWS ABOUT MODEL ROCKETRY!

The new Homeland Security Act has many provisions that threaten rocketry in the United States. Both small rockets and high power models are affected. We need your help to make rocketry legal again. Please write your State's Senator now. Click Here for more information.

If the video on that page becomes slashdotted, go here

Re:Not for long

[pi eater]

Just come practice your hobby in Canada, we'll allow anything! In fact, I think that my neighbour might be the world's newest nuclear power.

geek gear

Re:Not for long

[HillBilly]

What are you going to do with a model rocket? Shoot down a model Space Shuttle Columbia?

Oh I'm going to be modded down for this one :)

Re:Not for long

[Shakrai]

Just come practice your hobby in Canada, we'll allow anything! In fact, I think that my neighbour might be the world's newest nuclear power.

Cool! Welcome to the Axis of Evil. You can take Iraqi seat... they won't be needing it anymore ;)

Why build your own Saturn?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're affordably priced little cars. I'm sure buying the parts just costs more, and people haven't been building cars themselves for nearly a century.

Re:Why build your own Saturn?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's very interesting. That design flaw will definately make me rethink my plans, too.

Laws of physics DO change on small scale

[Jonas the Bold]

"It's just a matter of scale as far as the rockets are concerned. The laws of physics don't change,"

Except that gravity is in m/s(2). So if you change the height of the rocket, gravity effects it differently. Also, air, a fluid, is more viscous at a smaller scale.

Re:Laws of physics DO change on small scale

[davidm25]

gravity isn't going to be different but this rocket might be operating in a low reynolds number environment. And of course I am sure their engine is nothing like a real one. I doubut most of the weight of this model is in rocket fuel.

Re:Laws of physics DO change on small scale

[jonadab]

> Except that gravity is in m/s(2)

Don't know what physics book you've been reading, but last I checked gravity
was a force, measured in Newtons, generally (or pounds, but for things like
rocket physics it's easier to stick with SI). The acceleration due to gravity
can be measured in m/(s^2), but that's neither here nor there, because it is
only constant (on Earth at a given altitude) if no other force is being applied,
which in practice is basically never the case. The other force comes from the
fuel the rocket is expelling -- and, like the force of gravity, is propotional
to the mass of the rocket. So, the physics are pretty similar.

The notable difference is that a smaller rocket has (relatively) further to
go in order to reach orbit. But small rockets generally don't have reaching
orbit as one of their main goals, so it's not a big deal.

Re:Laws of physics DO change on small scale

[jonadab]

Oh, BTW, you're right that the laws of physics are different on a small scale,
but you've got the scale wrong; a model rocket is well above the line wherein
standard Newtonian physics generally apply. If you want to see the laws of
physics go all weird, you have to get down to the submicroscopic level.

Re:Laws of physics DO change on small scale

[EvanED]

He's saying that if you build a rocket many miles high gravity won't be uniform over the entire thing, where it is for all intents and purposes at the scale of a model.

Re:Laws of physics DO change on small scale

[dicka_j]

very nice troll, you sucked in a few people with it. 1) by dissagreeing with an acurate statement 2) by missusing facts to backup your incorrect statement. worked on me!

Re:Laws of physics DO change on small scale

[geekoid]

ahhh, but the farther way from the planet, the less force is being applied, so technically, the nose of the rocket ways less at the top of the rocket then it wuld towards the bottom, so there is a gravity effect. However it wqould be very small. you are actually lighter on the top of Mt.Everest then you are at sea level.

Now as you go towards the center of the earth, the mass above you will have a gravity pull on you as well as the mass below you, so at the center of the earth, you would float. You would have to take into account the differerent densities, but you get the picture.

Re:Laws of physics DO change on small scale

[Legendre]

The original poster's comment about the effect of gravity was... ahem, cryptic. I think this is what what he meant:

A rocket 50 meters tall will traverse a distance of 4.9 meters in 1 second, assuming it starts from rest and accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2 (we're assuming the rocket's upwards acceleration is just enough to match gravity). Thus, the distance covered is only about 10% of the total rocket length.

Imagine you're watching a movie. The natural inclination of the videographer is to make the rocket fit the frame height exactly. After 1 second, you see 10% of the rocket move off-screen (the camera is in fixed position).

If a mini rocket is only 5 meters tall, it traverse the same distance (4.9 meters) in the same time (1 second), given the same upwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. Thus the distance traveled is total length of the rocket (5m).

If the videographer was filming this, he'd still zoom in so the 5 meter rocket would fit the vertical frame size exactly. But now, from your point of view, the movie-viewer, after 1 second the whole rocket is off-screen!

In essence, the physics are similar, but the intended effect is not. One can't just scale down everything by a factor of x, since the equations are non-linear. We can fix our mini-rocket by making it accelerate slower, but that'd change the thrust equations since gravity is still 9.8 m/s^2 at this scale!

So yes, gravity 'effect' will be different, but yes, the physics are still the same!

Mirror

[mrwonton]

Here's a mirror for you

sigh. might as well get it out of the way.

[stonecypher]

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of (-1, Redundant)

Model Rocketry Is In Trouble

[MountainLogic]

The office of home land paranoia is really doing it's best toshut down this kind of hobby. See here for more details.

Re:Model Rocketry Is In Trouble

[jd]

Looking through the info on the Office of Foam Bland Insecurity, the following is obvious:

• Neither side is being 100% honest with their feedback. 5 miles for an AT device? Sure. There are the blueprints for that $5000 cruise missile on the Australian website. It has a range of 100 miles. I think it very likely someone could adapt that design.
  
• On the flip-side, that's hardly the same as a COTS model rocket from Wal-Mart. We're talking about very very different ends of the spectrum, here, as if they were the same thing.
  
• The ARLA (Advanced Rocket Launch Assist) device doesn't really need a rocket at all, but it would be massively more dangerous to any aircraft. Yet the materials required are not an issue to the Govt, but model rocket fuel is??
  
• I've never heard of a model rocket being used to swindle billions (Worldcom, anyone?), rob a bank, or hijack an aircraft. The biggest threat to aircraft seems to be all these knives that are being smuggled openly through airport security. That's an established threat. Can the Govt ever get priorities straight?
  

Re:Model Rocketry Is In Trouble

[bm_luethke]

I tell you what, after reading the list of people who seem to be wanting to ban it I would say they are wrong.

Something has to be off when the Patriot Act republicans and the anti-gun democrats vehemently agree on something.

Slashdotting's effect on sales?

[subk]

I wonder how many of us geeks will click add-to-cart tonight?

Re:Slashdotting's effect on sales?

[Buran]

I want one, but I still need to clean out my workspace I'm planning to set up in the basement and clear out my kit backlog a bit. I'll probably try to pick up one of the Revell 1/96 Saturn 5 kits, though, and some accurization parts for it.

Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[cmowire]

1) Solid rocket engines. They have made Peroxide+Gasoline rocket engines in small scale. Use one of them. At the very least a pressure fed John Carmack special style engine.
2) One stage. The Saturn V has 3 stages. This one, and all of the injection-molded toys before it, were only 1 stage. Where's the fun in that?
3) Injection molding. Where's the work in that?

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[taniwha]

Well to paraphrase a rather sad movie "you call that a rocket, .... this is a rocket

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[feronti]

Obviously you're not a model rocketeer:) There are several reasons for using solid rocket motors in this kit:

1. This kit (I'm assuming; can't get to the site:) is aimed at non-high power certified members of the NAR (National Association of Rocketry) and TRA (Tripoli Rocketry Association). Non-solid non-premanufactured engines are not allowed for these classes of member at events sanctioned by either, and using them on your own is a good way to get your insurance cancelled. At Level 1 certification in either organization, you can use hybrids, but you still can't use experimental engines. IIRC, NAR does not allow experimental engines at any cert level, and TRA only allows it at Level 3.
2. Regulatory reasons. As others have mentioned, the Homeland Security Act is very tough on the hobby. Even without that, FAA regs make flying a liquid-fueled experimental engine very difficult, IIRC.

That said, I do have to agree about the other 2... especially if that single stage isn't a 5-engine cluster:)

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Injection molding. Where's the work in that? " ...I use to work at Elastimold in Albuquerque, NM & believe me running a hot injection molding press for eight hours is W O R K!

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[Licinius]

Yeah. I'm also not impressed in the least. I expect miniature liquid hydrogen and oxygen rocket engines, 3 stages, and the ability to put a mouse into lunar orbit (if I so desire) if I'm going to pay $225 US for an amateur rocket enthusiast kit. I mean, jeez, what were they thinking when they made this? This thing will be no fun at all for anyone.

/sarcasm

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[Shadwell]

Way to be a killjoy. Shouldn't you be out kicking puppies now?

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[cmowire]

Work for the person who's building the mold and running the press, not for the person assembling. ;)

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[freeze128]

One stage. The Saturn V has 3 stages. This one, and all of the injection-molded toys before it, were only 1 stage. Where's the fun in that?

Hmmm... The 3 stages of the Saturn V are disposable and have no recovery chutes. Seeing your $225 rocket return safely as a $12 command module.... Where's the fun in that?

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your facts streight. You only have to be level 2 to fly EX at a TRA launhc, but you must be certified to the level of impulse you intend to fly.

Re:Reasons why I'm not impressed:

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you're a pompous ass. Now go back to watching cartoons while mamma sews up the holes in your pajama feet.

Good ol' rocket days

[mharris007]

I remember the good ol' days of rocket launching, always a blast; Estes was awesome back in the day. Have any of you seen the movie October Sky, that was an excellent film. Anyways, they had all kinds of scale rockets, and planes, nowhere near this detail though, but fun none the less.

Re:Good ol' rocket days

[pi eater]

I was about to mention that movie. I suppose there isn't as much to get inspired by nowadays.. If you remember the teenagers in the flick were inspired by Sputnik, the first man made satellite.

Blasting things into space is so common in today's world.. I wonder what sort of things we need to do to inspire the astronauts of tomorrow

geek gear

Re:Good ol' rocket days

[xyote]

See the movie October Sky? We were shooting steel pipes into the sky in those days (pre Estes). You took a keen interest in where those suckers came down. Mostly suger and salt peter fuel (hint don't cook this up in your kitchen unless you think soot from premature combustion is a nice decorative motif) but we had an Explorer post sponsored by IBM with geek IBM engineers as advisors with unlimited buget. Bad idea. Dialog right out of Real Genius. "Oh, don't breath any of that zinc powder. It's microgranulated and highly toxic". "Yeah, your finger will stick instantly to the strain gauge if you touch that new instant glue Kodak just invented. Let's get the razor blade and unstick your finger." "Aieeee...".

Estes rocket not detailed ?

[LouSir]

I remember getting the Estes Saturn V kit around 1971. Not detailed ? How about cutting long balsa rods exactly to spec then gluing them together to form that steel lattice work at the top of the rocket. That's detail. I never managed to complete it cause it had about 841,231 pieces. It also took about $5 in engines which in 1971 was a lot of money for a kid. LouSir

More impressed with High powered rockets.

[zymano]

Real rockets for big boys

+1

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell modded this troll? I have a Saturn, and it has exactly the problem being discussed - that is occasional corrosion holes.

I NEED one of these

[sakusha]

I was one of the rare few that tried (repeat TRIED) to build the Estes Saturn V kit. It was incredibly difficult, even if you weren't 9 years old like I was. It was almost impossible to cut and roll the little paper cones just right. And that escape tower lattice made from little toothpicks, yow, I just couldn't get it right. I put it in the closet where it gathered dust, and was eventually dumped by my parents. I recently learned that original Estes kits, even partially assembled ones, were being bought for hundreds of bucks by model rocket enthusiasts. Ouch!
So the moment I saw this kit, I felt I needed to buy it just to complete my incomplete childhood experience. But none of that plastic injection molded crap, I'll build my own escape tower from toothpicks!
Anyway, it's too bad the site's slashdotted, they could have broken all their sales records. Most companies would kill for PR like this, but it looks like the site admin took it down, he didn't realize what was happening.

Re:I NEED one of these

[sakusha]

Oops, in retrospect, I guess it was the Saturn 1B kit because I remember gluing together the multiple tubes in the first stage. I don't think Estes even made a SatV model, just the Sat1B. The 1B was a way cooler rocket anyway. The new company makes both, and none of those lame multiple D engines, just a single F or G engine.
Oh the rocket memories this brings back. But if I built it, it would probably be just like the most complex kit I ever built, the Estes Bomarc. I spent weeks making it absolutely perfect, it glided in a perfect circle after ejecting the engine, just like it was supposed to, and smoothly touched down on the grass.. whereupon one of the neighborhood kids that was chasing it stepped right on it and smashed it to bits.

Re:I NEED one of these

[asparagus]

I've still got a Saturn V kit in my closet (just checked, and yes that's what it is). It's about halfway built, but apparently has survived the past five years fine. Is it really worth anything?

On the other hand, I now seem to have more than enough time on my hands to finish it. Maybe I'll bust out the ole' glue tube out again. And put some in a bag.

(inhales deeply)
-Brett

Re:I NEED one of these

[drinkypoo]

I caught the site coming halfway back up, and before that I got a 500, so I'm thinking it's genuinely slashdotted. That's okay, it'll still be in older stuff tomorrow.

Re:I NEED one of these

[Brandybuck]

A friend at school actually completed one. We took it out to the launch pad, and launched. It went up perfectly. But the 'chute never opened, and it came down just as perfect. *Straight* down. It accordianed to only one foot in height.

Re:I NEED one of these

[sakusha]

Is it only 5 years old? IIRC, it has to be one of the original 1970s kits to be worth anything. If it's 5 years old, it's probably still in production and thus less valuable. But put it up on eBay and see what you get. Or better yet, finish it, but not with the multiple Estes D motors, which were almost impossible to light simultaneously, rip that crap out and put in a mount for a single G engine.
Anyway, the coolest rocket I ever built was also the last kit I ever built, a very simple design of a 2-stage rocket with a G motor and a second stage D motor. Construction was critical, it had laminated pine fins. The manufacturer said it would hit the sound barrier, and either smash to bits, or emit an audible sonic boom. But you had to stand in exactly the right spot to hear the faint boom, IIRC it was 180 feet from the launch pad. Yep, I heard the boom, it went up and up, and vanished forever. Must've gone at least 3000ft.

Re:I NEED one of these

[grozzie2]

Anyway, it's too bad the site's slashdotted, they could have broken all their sales records. Most companies would kill for PR like this, but it looks like the site admin took it down, he didn't realize what was happening.

There is a lesson in 'building your infrastructure' here. This company sells model rockets. Something like a 'great' Saturn V model appeals very strongly to a large chunk of the /. crowd. To have this crowd arrive on that website, the sales folks should be saying 'its not haloween, its christmas a couple months early'.

If the server had stood up, I think it's a pretty good bet, they woulda sold 500 of the models tonite, and, a few thousand more folks would have dropped the site into the 'place to get christmas presents' folder in bookmarks. Alas, the reality of it is, tomorrow morning there will be an internal memo saying 'web server crashed last nite' at apogee rockets, and, the largest sales opportunity of the year just disappeared.

There is a lesson here on how to build your online infrastructure, and whoever is doing it for this company, just failed. It's to bad nobody at the company will ever realize how big an opportunity they missed here today...

Re:I NEED one of these

[l810c]

I remember this one well, even though it's been 30 years. I actually finished it. It took me a couple of weeks.

We brought it down to the field at the end of the street. When it launched, it quickly shot up to about twelve(yes 12) feet and begun spinning in circles wildly in place at first then right towards us. Just missed my brother as he dove behind the dirt mound that it slammed into and shattered all my hard work.

Probably my poor construction that caused the misfire. And what a range of emotions in those few quick moments:

Surprise -> Scared Shitless -> Elation -> Sadness

Speaking of the Sadness after the crash, I just thought I'd mention this as I just remembered and it made me laugh again. A few years later my brother got into model airplane building. These things were a Ton of work. He brought his plane down to the elementary school as they had a nice wide open space. About 15 seconds into flight it banks left and smashes into a tree completely wasting it. He builds a second plane, back to school, 15 seconds, smashes into side of school.

Re:I NEED one of these

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably my poor construction that caused the misfire

Nope, using multiple D rockets often results in this type of incident. That is why we use single G rockets these days.

Re:I NEED one of these

[sakusha]

I checked around eBay and it looks like the Sat V kits are a dime a dozen (well, NIB $50 anyway). It's the Saturn 1B that's the real rarity. Apparently the S1B wasn't as popular as its big brother, so it was discontinued after a short time and never reissued like the SV.
I found a site that offers plans for almost all the Estes rockets, if you want to build one from raw parts, or just gawk at the complex instructions that stumped me when I was just a little kid.
http://www.dars.org/jimz/estes.htm
Unfortun ately the Saturn 1B kits had custom vacuformed parts, so that's why the old vintage kits are so prized. One guy sells cloned parts, check it out:
http://members.aol.com/grafgulch/sat1b.htm

Re:I NEED one of these

[vistas]

The Saturn 1B kit (also called "Uprated Saturn 1" for a year) had the wooden lattice escape tower structure. It was introduced in 1967 or 68. It was the same scale as Apogee's current kits, 1/70.

The first 1/100 Saturn V kit was from Centuri in late 1968 and is essentially the blueprint for the Apogee model. All the major features of the Centuri kit are there in the Apogee kit.

The Estes model came out over half a year later, after Apollo 11. Vern Estes and G. Harry Stine attended the moon launch and tried to get some publicity by launching one of the prototype Estes models for network TV crews, but NASA had a slight problem with that and shut the flight down. Don't remember if they may have flown it later, off of NASA property.

Anyway, both 1/100th Apollo capsules had injection molded escape towers. That would've been really a biatch to do those things in wood, but I've heard of Polish and Czech model rocket people in the '60's doing so.

Build your own Saturn V cheaper!

[tsangc]

http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=7468 :)

Please Help Save Model Rocketry

[physicsnerd]

For more info on what's going on and how you can help go to:

http://www.saverocketrynow.org/

Speaking of Estes...

[Radical Rad]

Look at this toy r/c jet aircraft they make. I wonder how well its jetfan engine works. Has anybody tried one?

Re:Speaking of Estes...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably not really a "jet", but just a high RPM ducted-fan that's electrically driven. Being a toy-ish type of thing it probably does exactly what it says on the box.

As someone who wanted to fly R/C planes when I was younger - but didn't think I afford to (danger of crashes, etc), so I stuck to RC cars instead. That kit seems like a really cool idea - probably almost indestructable especially since the fan is internal (and nothing will break in a rough landing). I'm now thinking about getting one myself to see if I still have any enthuasiasm for model aircraft. Thanks for the link.

Re:Speaking of Estes...

[waferhead]

Looks cool, I bookmarked the RC "Jet"...
You can get some great flytime out of some of the little Nimh powered planes, pucked up a little ~18" span FF powered glider at some sale, charged it up, and it seemed to go forever... over and over until it was just disappeared one day over the horizon.
(OK, out of visual range, the trim got tweaked and it went straight...)

The grandkids loved it, but I wanted an RC version.

Indestructable is good.

Re:Speaking of Estes...

[ducomputergeek]

Not like that. I have flown scale lear jet kits that had ducted fan engines that were gas powered. However, at $15 a gallon for the special fuel, it got expensive and I went back to prop jobs that used regular ole 2-cycle fuel (gas with oil mixture like you put into your chain saw).

This was like 10 years ago, the engines were a tad bit under powered and expensive. I think that plane took about 5 months and $6000 with engines and all to put together. It flew fine, but couldn't do any fancy manouvers.

Any serious R/C plane gear will cost you about $150 for a starter kit. Anything less than that is more of a toy than a hobby kit. I just got into R/C planes again and it cost me about $300 for a gas powered trainer with remote.

The russians will get there first ....

[taniwha]

well last time it was tried they did (the american's wimped out :-)

Apogee ....

[Anonymous Coward]

don't they make bongs?

Re: Apogee ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they made some OOOOOOLLLD video games, I guess the company is full of video game playing pot heads.

Sign me up!

Oh, I get you now.

[Tomble]

Not being a particularly space-oriented nerd nor a Merkin, I saw the topic and just thought of Saturn 3, you know, the one where Harvey Keitel fires the bloke through the big cheese-grater into space and then makes his robot go mad and fancy the blonde bird and stuff.

Or something. Um. Hey, I should become a film reviewer, eh?

Well anyhow, I did get which one the subject was about after a moment or two, so no harm done (and no offence meant to our trans-atlantic cousins, BTW ;).

Scaling it up??

[Carpet]

Wasn't it just a while ago that a lot of people on /. were lamenting on the loss of the Saturn V rocket design, especially since NASA is thinking of reintroducing Apollo style capsules?

Well... we have a working model, which claims to be to-scale, so if we could blow it up, voila! Granted as some people have already said, small-scale physics work differently, but that's what computer simulations are for =)

Would be really nice to have the Saturn V back... IMHO the launch sequence is FAR moroe impressive than the present shuttle.

Re:Scaling it up??

[Anonymous Coward]

so if we could blow it up,

Now ain't that an unfortunate choice of words!

Re:Scaling it up??

[Buran]

The tooling has been destroyed, the blueprints are long since lost, and most of the original designers are long since retired or dead. The best we can do is to design a new rocket in the same class. It's a real shame -- I've seen all three of the surviving Saturn Vs, and the fiberglass replica in Huntsville (the only vertical Saturn 5 display anywhere) and I'd love to see one flying ... but I was born a couple decades too late.

The launch pads themselves survive ... they're still in use today as the Space Shuttle launch pads. But the gigantic red towers that rode on the crawler beside the Saturn are long since cut to scrap, although a few remnants can be seen near the Kennedy Space Center.

The real question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it have good yaw control? /simpsons

Still good in the rerun

[poptones]

This is a really old story. I don't recall if I read it here or on ars, but I first read about this thing a really, really long time ago (like maybe July, 2002?)

Anyway, it's worth the trip to follow the links to the website of the people who make this thing. There are some fantastic MPEG clips of flights of this model that (were, maybe not are) available for download.

Why is it so cool to watch a model fly? Check it out and see. The thing is so big nad heavy it "lifts off" just like a "real" rocket. None of this 3-2-1 disappear in a puff of smoke. You actually get several frames of liftoff before it really picks up speed... very cool.

Re:Still good in the rerun

[Anonymous Coward]

Several frames out of 23, 23 frames per second..hmm. Sounded a lot more impressive -before- I thought about it.

Re:Still good in the rerun

[Illbay]

None of this 3-2-1 disappear in a puff of smoke.

The first time I ever launched a model rocket, I was expecting something FAR different from what actually happened.

Having watched the manned launches on TV since the very first manned Gemini (5, wasn't it?), I was expecting the "hovering on a tail of flame" effect.

Instead, what I got was "there's the rocket sitting on the launcher. WHERE'S the rocket that was sitting on the launcher!?!?"

You just heard "FFFssssshhhhh!" and it was gone. I remember staring stupidly at the launcher for an instant before I thought to look up, just in time to see the parachute high above.

Actually recovered that one (I think it was a model of the Nike/Delta) and flew it a few more times before it finally just broke up from the stress, but from then on I knew to look UP as I hit the button on the launch controller, not at the "launchpad!"

This explains it

[Anonymous Coward]

So, this is what Apogee have been up to... now we know why Duke Nukem Forever is taking so long.

Re:This explains it

[Illbay]

... now we know why Duke Nukem Forever is taking so long.

The title should have clued you in.

scaled servers

[skydude_20]

even their servers were built to a minature scale, not the big real machines needed for a good ol' slashdotting...

mirrors please?

good ol' dangerous days

[eamonman]

I wish things were the 60's again:

1. We shot rockets to the moon (whose side effects could apparently kill you)
2. We had really powerful pesticides like DDT (although it could kil you too.)
3. We had extra heavy and powerful cars like the dart that really did intimidate (although getting into a simple crash could kill you).

Apparently everything tended to build character in those days. It's a testament I suppose to the advancements in technology that we don't 'build character' as much anymore ;)

Re:good ol' dangerous days

[Anonymous Coward]

2. We had really powerful pesticides like DDT (although it could kil you too.)Actually DDT is not very bad at all for humans (in the concentrations used) but it is thought to be very damaging to large birds (while in the egg).

Re:good ol' dangerous days

[GebsBeard]

We had extra heavy and powerful cars like the dart that really did intimidate (although getting into a simple crash could kill you).

Uh I think you meant hemi cuda or challenger, or maybe LS6 chevelle. You might as well have said monza or pinto ;-)

By the way does your name refer to The Wonderful World of Eamon?

Apogee... Rockets...

[jonadab]

Did anybody else read that this rocket is made by Apogee and start thinking
about a rocket made out of a baked bean can? Or was that just me?

booster models

[igny]

I would be interested in a working 1:60 (~1/60^3 in weight) model of the most powerful launch vehicle in the world . Imagine:

Standing ~40 inches (1.0 meters) tall and weighing about 10 kilograms (quite chubby) at launch...

If the scale doesnt matter in laws of physics one can expect a useful payload to be ~ 100t/60^3 ~ 460grams ~ 1 pound to be launched to low orbits, and about 100 grams to the geostationary orbit, and about 150 grams to be sent on the lunar mission trajectory.

Re:booster models

[Buran]

That rocket was just made for me ... ;)

Impressive:)

[feronti]

Is that baby yours or did you grab that pic from somewhere else?

Re:Impressive:)

[taniwha]

not mine - though I did see it fly (not very well, it was underpowered and the upper stage failed to light)

how about a 1x scale version

[ksheff]

NASA needs something to launch big heavy payloads into space. The shuttles are ok, but a unmanned vehicle would be extremely useful for shipping new sections to the ISS or a hubble replacement.

Re:how about a 1x scale version

[pVoid]

Uhh, cause the Saturn's were extremely expensive and mostly trashed after each flight. Only in the 60's would you have such garguatuan levels of waste.

Re:how about a 1x scale version

[Drakin]

And the shuttles arn't? They have to refit them after each launch... they're not as reusable as one thinks.

Re:how about a 1x scale version

[ksheff]

It's not any different than NASA's, the Russian's or the ESA's unmanned launchers. The shuttle practically has to be torn down and rebuilt after every shuttle landing now which isn't cheap. Look at all the other nations that are launching stuff into space. The US is the only one that uses a reusable craft. The other approaches are cheaper.

Well...

[jd]

I'd be more interested if the scale was 1:1 (without changing the price from the model version)

As for the Govt rules against rocketry - this is hardly a surprise. I'm amazed it didn't occur much sooner. There's a certain paranoia about aircraft being blown out the sky, or "rogue" nations developing new rocket technology.

However, since the same Government publishes software on how to simulate and design remotly operated vehicles, and since the Australian Govt was quite OK with budget cruise missile plans being put online, I really don't think the hobbyists are quite the danger to security that seems to be believed.

I think we need a new amendment to the constitution: Whosoever passes a stupid, crazy, insane law in order to feed their own or other's paranoia shall be condemned to watch re-runs of Australian soap-operas for a minimum of 10 years with no chance of parole.

Re:Well...

[freeze128]

I'd be more interested if the scale was 1:1 (without changing the price from the model version)

WOW, you would need FAA approval just to stand the thing upright!

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

One racist austrian to another:

What's black, blue, smelly and doesnt say Allah Akbar?

They have been /.ed

[TheLostStooge]

Great some jerkoff posts the story on a friday at 8:18pm, obviously way after the company's support staff has gone home. Now the site has been dotted and it is offline and I wont be able to read the freakin thing til some tech drives his ass in to fix it..........

build a 10 foot tall one!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

these guys have a 10 foot tall model of the Saturn V:

http://www.skunkworksrocketry.com/saturn_v_-_10. ht m

but it will cost you $300 in motors and $300 in reloads to fly it. that's High Powered Rocketry!!

Re:sigh. might as well get it out of the way.

[Anonymous Coward]

A beowulf cluster...of tiny rockets? Why not make one really big one?

Banners Shmanners

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is up with these big flashy banners on the right side .... I don't like them... Oh well I think it's time to move along. Bye Bye Slash Flash... You lost me...

Old Rivalry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apogee Components introduces a scale model of the Saturn V booster while Carmack races into space. Could this be a replay of the Apogee vs. Id Software rivalry? ;)

It won't be long now...

[saskboy]

Soon this company will be asked by a country in the Middle East for their kits. Then they won't last long. Imagine the reaction of Homeland Security? It won't be pretty.

Re:It won't be long now...

[dafoomie]

And of course they'll use those PS2's for missile guidance.

Re:It won't be long now...

[DigiShaman]

Better yet, just use a newer PDA with a fast processor that has GPS ability.

Re:It won't be long now...

[602]

"Soon this company will be asked by a country in the Middle East for their kits."

And it won't take them long to figure out that model rockets can't be turned into useful weapons.

http://www.saverocketrynow.org/continuation_of_d ef ault_page.htm

Estes

[Treacle Treatment]

The original Estes Saturn V's were multi engined. They would have been a larger (D) candidate had they been available at the time. Getting 3 or more engines to start at once is HARD.

-- TT

Pronouncing binary

[ChrisZuma]

Today my educated friend and I were teaching my less-privileged friend how to read binary, because he thought he was a nerd, and didnt know it (had to be fixed). While teaching him, we got into an argument about how to pronounce binary numbers. Are they read right-to-left like a standard base 10 number, or left-to-right like some heathens think? For example, would 11001 be read one-zero-zero-one-one or one-one-zero-zero-one?

Re:Pronouncing binary

[Anonymous Coward]

one-one-zero-zero-one

why the hell woudl anyone think it was that way? someone playing with token ring networks?

Hey...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a model.

Here is a image

[ludky132]

Here is another scale replica of the Saturn V for anyone who doesnt know what it looks like.

Just from reading the Slashdot headline...

[questforme]

For the first milli-second I thought "Wow, a life size Saturn V Rocket!", the second thought I had was "I need more money and a bigger back yard". After half a second I caught on.

not really a jet

[rebelcool]

a real jet takes air and compresses it and explodes it with a fuel mixture.

that said, there *are* RC jets. They're hideously expensive and tempermental and so fast as to be very difficult to fly. Only extremely experienced fanatics can build and fly them.

This company builds actual micro jet engines.

Not really true ....

[taniwha]

first of all it's from New Zealand and secondly it's not a rocketpowered device - it's pulse jet powered (ie it's a V1 not a V2).

Modern hobby rockets (like I and many others fly) do one thing well (and not even that) - they go up. We have wonderfull guidance devices called 'fins' they make things go straight provided they are fast enough and there's still air around - even then you're at the mercy of the wind, the jet stream as you pass thru it (yes we do) etc etc.

In other words hobby rockets don't have the sort of guidance system you would use when you want to hit a target - if the Congress was actually thinking rather than just reacting "people with rockets must be dangerous and could be terrorists we must do something to show that we are doling something" and they wanted to stop actual attacks on real targets they would: shut down the public GPS, ban RC model planes (or ratehr radio gear) and would never have given those 1000s of stingers to binLaden in the first place.

Re:Not really true ....

[jd]

Barnes Wallis played with corkscrew fins, to get the benefit of gyroscopic forces.

You are right, though, and I think we're all agreed that this is a stupid, paranoid law to cover the backs of stupid, paranoid people, where the ones NOT affected are terrorists and the ones that are are the hobbyists and the American private sector.

Re:Not really true ....

[taniwha]

Barnes Wallis played with corkscrew fins, to get the benefit of gyroscopic forces.

Well putting a spin on a rocket helps you make it go straight - again cool it you want to make it go up - or aim at something really close in a straight line - if you want a real guidance system it makes it a lot harder in fact ideally you want to take the spin off - rollerons are a cool way to do this.

The big down side of spinning a rocket is drag (think of the dynamic effects as you go thru mach ....)

Re:Not really true ....

[jd]

But...

Think of the neat sound effects, of a rocket spinning at an audible number of cycles per second, when hitting mach 1!

If you could vary the rate of rotation just right, you could even get it to play an MP3. Nark off the US Govt -and- the RIAA at the same time!

(Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not practical. None of my ideas are. But that's half the fun!)

Re:Not really true ....

[taniwha]

err.... trust me the fins will probably fall off .... fin-flutter thru mach has killed many good rockets after their owners thought they'd try "just the next biggest motor" ....

I liked the Estes kit

[falcon5768]

I had the redstone one and it lifted off perfectly, looked just like the film footage, going up slowly and gracefully, not at all like the little alphas and such

Laws of physics do NOT change on small scale

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The laws DO NOT change at small scale... that is WHY they are laws of nature: they apply everywhere, at every scale, all the time. The question is WHICH laws dominate the phenomena you're interested in at the appropriate scales. If it is otherwise, we simply have not founddiscovered the correct laws yet.

Re:Trick or Treat, Negro Style

[gujo-odori]

Oops, that should have been "would lie about an athlete's skill" not "would like." That'll teach me to submit without previewing. Doh!

Apogee?

[t0ny]

Since its Apogee, does it come with Duke Nukem?

My Ride.

[linzeal]

I think it would be far more impressive to the opposite sex if you could manipulate a 2,766,913 kg rocket along side her and say, "Hey baby want to ride on my rocket." and actually have that pickup line work. Story at 11.

Where the fuck is my flying car by the way? I would not of got that damn DUI if I had been moving in 3-D airspace. I'm sick of land transportation, it pisses me off!

Rocket Simulation Software is also available

[shancock]

I've been into model rocketry for about two years now with my 12 year old son. It is great fun for both of us. Like most other hobbies, it can be approached from many levels with equal enjoyment. We got the rocket simulation software (Rock Sim) from Apogee last year. It allows you to build model rockets on the software (3D) (using standard parts from hobby stores) and test their flight and return to earth (just as important in models as in real rockets). You can then save and print out the details. There is a demo available on Apogees' site.

Our problem has been in finding good places to launch. We get rained out alot from local rocket club launches and its hard to find places to shoot on our own. We sometimes sneak over to nearby schools with their large playgrounds early on Sunday mornings to launch. Risky in post 9/11 USA.

Going to local rocket club launches is also fun. Not only can you shoot your own rockets off but you can watch the big and experimental rockets launching.

A good source of beginner rockets and hybrid motors for the big boys is Pratt Hobbies. www.pratthobbies.com.

Payload....

[hughk]

You are quite right. It wouldn't be nice to be underneath one of these things when it fell, but how many grams of explosive could it carry?

Mortars tend to be more favored than rockets by terrorists (they are easier to aim, and can carry more payload as the fuel doesn't go up with it). I have no issues on restrictions on where rocketry can be practiced, but it really doesn't need any further controls until we talk about payloads of a kg or more.

Re:Payload....

[jd]

I very much agree, on all points.

Britain has far more experience on terrorism than the US, and I honestly don't recall rockets ever being a significant component. Mortars, yes -- and they were amazingly inaccurate.

By far the nastiest type of weapon used by terrorists in the UK was also one of the most trivial. A simple bomb with a timer, dropped in a bin somewhere. It got to the point, in the UK, where bins were simply removed from crowded areas and those that were left were heavily reinforced with multiple linings to contain explosions.

The second nastiest is the car bomb. This is wildly underestimated in destructiveness. The IRA flattened a sizable chunk of Manchester, with a single 1000 lbs. bomb. The Oaklahoma bombing took out most of the FBI building, and was again 1,000 lbs. I only rate it second-nastiest because it's sufficiently expensive and sufficiently difficult that it is very very rarely used.

But this is what we need to bear in mind. These bombs caused a sizable bit of damage, and were only 1,000 lbs. If you check the capacity of the typical juggernaut, it's often in the range of 65,000 lbs -- or, to put it another way, more than three times as powerful as the US DoD's MOAB - the largest conventional bomb in the US arsnal.

Something on that kind of scale could probably take out an aircraft (and a good bit of the airfield) from even a few miles away. No possibility of missing, because it'd be using the shock-waves to damage the area, not just the immediate vicinity.

A rocket takes some engineering skills to build. It takes effort to construct a light-weight guidance system, that the rocket is capable of carrying. It would be no mean feat to provide enough carrying capacity to do more than your typical bird-strike.

Rockets are good for enthusiasts, and great for those wanting to put something into space. I firmly believe that amateurs will conquer the challanges of space flight, long before any Government can get past the moon. Or perhaps even get as far as getting back to the moon.

I am quite prepared to believe that geeks are capable of getting a Gnutella or OpenNapster server into lunar orbit, with enough power to trade songs and files with anyone with a typical satellite TV dish.

I don't believe rockets are a useful weapon for urban terrorism, simply because urban terrorists tend not to use them. The hallmark of almost all terrorist activity throughout the world has been one of simplicity. To the best of my knowledge, every attempt that the media has then covered, where terrorist groups have tried to use complex systems has ended in the complex system proving useless or worse than useless.

I don't think rockets need any further regulation, and I think the existing regulations are stricter than necessary. I don't see rockets being a threat to anyone, any time soon.

Even the rockets used by the US military are probably only capable of doing fairly minimal damage. The cost/benefit ratio is not that great. You see small chunks taken out of a building, in war footage, but that's really not that impressive. You see more damage from a gas leak.

Compare the time and effort of the precision engineering required, to that of renting a large tractor/trailer rig, stuffing it with high explosives and possibly pouring in a few gallons of liquid oxygen. Relatively cheap, relatively easy, quite capable of pulverizing anything in a five mile radius.

If a rocket misses, it might take out a chunk of sidewalk (pavement to UKers). You can't miss with a truck.

Re:Payload....

[hughk]

The other point is cost. To launch a rocket that with get near enough into space, it will probably be quite sophisticated, hard to manufacture and in real terms, quite expensive.

A truck load of Anfol (Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil) as favoured by many terrorists is cheaper, easier to make and more reliable. A friend's personal nightmare is an LPG tanker, which could be made into a poor-man's fuel-air bomb.

The only real issue is where does the thing come down? The UK is crowded, the US a lot less so - but if you launched something near LA, it would probably hit something coming down. I'm fully in favour of a requirement that all rockets above a certain size be tested on ranges.

> There are already fairly strict requirements on working with pyrotechnics and storing them, and personally, I see solid fuel as just another pyrotechnic.

I saw a Saturn V launch myself.

[KH2002]

Am I the only guy that old on Slashdot? Well, I was a kid, and it was one of the last ones.

I was a little over 3.5 miles away. Of course there was a several-second wait before the sound reached you. It was *very* loud, but I don't remember my ears ringing afterward. I definitely remember the physical sensation of the pressure hitting my chest- something unique in my lifetime (probably a good thing). I don't know quite how to say it, but it wasn't so much an ear-shattering volume as the way it seemed to envelop eveything. It was unforgettable.

Re:I saw a Saturn V launch myself.

[iCat]

Tell us about the ragtime, Daddy-O ;-)

WOW!

[jjeffrey]

WOW - Your old enough to remember the 60s?

Re:WOW!

[Illbay]

Y'wanna hear something even SCARIER?!?!

I actually remember--vaguely--the FIFTIES!!!

blueprints are not lost

[fredmosby]

according to this page

Re:blueprints are not lost

[adeyadey]

To quote that article..

In years past, rumors have abounded that in the 1970s the White House or Congress had the Saturn 5 plans destroyed "to prevent the technology from falling into the wrong hands".

That seems doubtful -- it would be a formidable terrorist group that decided to build a Saturn 5 to wreak havoc on the world, or build a lunar base..

There is only one such group. Picture Blofelt sitting in a chair stroking a cat. "Ah, Mr Bond, we've been expecting you.."

Re:blueprints are not lost

[taybin]

Weird for the article to forget that in the 1970s, terrorists weren't the threat they are now. They were obviously talking about the Soviets, and maybe China and some of the Arab nations.

Where can I buy..

[adeyadey]

..the 1:1 scale version of this?

Come on folks... it wasn't that long ago...

[advocate_one]

"Only a few rocketeers alive today were lucky enough to actually witness the event of a Saturn V lifting off into space."

Last time I looked the final launch of a Saturn V was in November 1973 (40th Anniversary coming up. Embarassing one possibly). I'm 46 and I witnessed a launch back in 1971... so you don't have to be that old to have seen one...

Re:Come on folks... it wasn't that long ago...

[mjm]

I'm 46 and I witnessed a launch back in 1971... so you don't have to be that old to have seen one...

What's that in slashdot years?

"that flies a lot like the real thing"

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know rockets flew! I always throught that the difference between rockets and airplanes were that airplanes flew, rockets rocket.

Re:I saw [multiple] Saturn V launch[es] myself.

[DoraLives]

Am I the only guy that old on Slashdot?

Nope.

Can you believe all the idiocy people are slagging around about that bird? Yeah, I grew up just south of PAFB, had both parents who worked out there, and watched 'em all (excepting Apollo 17 and Skylab, I was off in Hawaii playing tag with 10 meter waves), and NONE of what them mopes are yapping about is on the mark. You're the ONLY one so far that seems to have so much as HALF a handle on the sonic effects (The doodybird above pasting in unchecked "facts" about "pulverized skeletons" is so wrong he's funny, and the idiot trying to tell us that the Launch Blast Danger Zone is 3 miles because of sound is just plain WRONG [I do believe we need a new mod point -1 for "wrong," please take note slashdot eds.]).

People who get their "information" from tour gides, the discovery channel, or other equally dubious sources deserve every rotten thing that happens to 'em!

As an interesting side note, nobody seems to appreciate the size, power, and SOUND of a Space Shuttle launch.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to compare the takeoff thrust of the two vehicles (hint: that Shuttle is BIG, goddammit) and then draw the proper conclusions as to what that means sonically.

If you think THAT Saturn V model is big...

[royalextra]

...then you might want to check out this 10" diameter, 9'7" 1/38th scale Saturn V from Skunk Works Rocketry.

Re:I saw [multiple] Saturn V launch[es] myself.

[NormalVisual]

Yeah, I grew up just south of PAFB, had both parents who worked out there, and watched 'em all (excepting Apollo 17 and Skylab, I was off in Hawaii playing tag with 10 meter waves)

Looks like we were neighbors - my dad was stationed at PAFB in the early/mid 70's, at the radar site at the corner of A1A and Pineda Causeway. I saw all of the post-Apollo 11 launches, all the Skylab launches, have seen probably about half of the Shuttle launches, and was unfortunately in Rockledge watching when the Challenger exploded.

I'd agree that the Shuttle launches are spectacular, but they simply don't compare to the Saturns. :-)

Excellent

[Maudib]

This will the perfect match for my home made nuclear warhead.

Remember, Bells are logaritmic

[caveat]

So while a '47 heavy at the end of the runway might very well be putting out 160dB, 200 db is on the order of ten thousand times more power, not 25% more...I can definitely see 200dB pulverizing a squishy human.

IIRC they need 3-4 Saturn Vs

[caveat]

To launch every last nut and bolt of the (complete) ISS, plus some, to a higher, much stabler orbit. But nooooo, NASA has to stick with Krikkit One..err...the Space Shuttle. If they could recover and reuse the lower stages (dunno how F-1 engines like saltwater though), we'd be set.

the office of dead horse beating wants to see you

[Anonymous Coward]

About a position within their organization.

Fallen Angels

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who saw the title and thought about the scene in Fallen Angels where they search for a missle in some museum's basement? I think it was a Titan there, but still.

No guidance - uninteresting

[Animats]

With no guidance, a tube rocket with no fins is marginally stable at best. They must launch it at high thrust with quick burnout, like most model rockets.

It would be cool to have one with a guidance system. Then you could have a slow, realistic liftoff, with the vehicle balanced on its rockets.

Re:No guidance - uninteresting

[Anonymous Coward]

the real and the model Saturn V do have fins. they are small but sufficient because they are a long way from the center of gravity.

two things:

model rocket active guidance has been tried and is "problematic". it really doesn't work, even with "modern electronics".

the real Saturn V did not do any reactive guidance while the first stage was boosting, because the resonance of the entire stack was too close to the frequency of the trajectory corrections. in other words, steering it would have made it fall apart!

instead they just ran the preprogrammed pitch & roll and made corrections starting with the second stage, 38 miles up.

Re:No guidance - uninteresting

[Animats]

model rocket active guidance has been tried and is "problematic". it really doesn't work, even with "modern electronics".

Click here for video of a model rocket builder who successfully launched a gyro-guided rocket. His rocket goes straight up, even on windy days. His control system is simple and cheap. The Gyroc model rocket also has good active stabilization. Watch the video. This is a slow launch in a high wind. The rocket is being blown sideways, but continues to point upward at all times.

The real Saturn V did not do any reactive guidance while the first stage was boosting, because the resonance of the entire stack was too close to the frequency of the trajectory corrections. in other words, steering it would have made it fall apart!

That's wrong. Four of the F-1 engines were gimballed (the center engine was fixed), and the vehicle was actively stabilized during ascent. The attitude was controlled according to a fixed schedule, rather than trying to keep the vehicle on a specific trajectory, because it was important during the atmospheric phase of flight to avoid wind stresses. So in-atmosphere trajectory corrections were avoided. Such corrections were possible with a better control system, and software to do it was developed for later Saturn V shots, but the Saturn V program was, of course, cancelled.

Without active stabilization, the Saturn V would never have cleared the launch tower before it went out of control.

Saturn V As ICBM -- It Did Happen (On TV!)

[Buran]

My comment was based on accounts of some parts of the plans showing up in garages, etc., of family relations of former von Braun team members...

Though your comment brings up an interesting fact -- there was one episode of Star Trek which actually uses the Saturn V as an intercontinental ballistic missile. The episode, Assignment: Earth, contains spliced-in footage from the launch of the very first Saturn V, the Apollo 4 systems verificaation test. (The episode was aired in early 1968, before Apollo 8's launch in December of that year which was the first manned use of the Saturn V rocket.) Views on film in this episode include the dramatic launch from several different engineering cameras (take a good look at the markings on the rocket -- they're not the same as the ones on the manned launches), along with the separation of the interstage ring from the second stage (with the S-1C stage visible way off in the distance.)

The irony of this situation is that the Saturn V was part of the first family of manned space launchers that was not developed from military rockets -- the Space Shuttle being only a partial exception as its design was heavily influenced by Air Force requirements -- and it may very well be that the public's first widespread view of it, on national television some nine months before Apollo 8's Christmastime flight, was as a supposed launcher for orbital hydrogen bombs! And they would have been gigantic bombs -- the Saturn 5's two-stage LEO-only variant, which didn't actually fly until 1973, placed the Skylab station into orbit. I can't imagine the V would have been required -- something little like an Atlas could have done the trick. But it wasn't as dramatic for TV purposes as Apollo 4 was...

Re:Saturn V As ICBM -- It Did Happen (On TV!)

[adeyadey]

Interesting stuff about the film being used for star trek - I had almost forgotten about that episode. Maybe Apollo is overkill for a warhead, but some sort of nuclear platorm/station would require the lift. Impressive film to use anyway..

Re:Saturn V As ICBM -- It Did Happen (On TV!)

[Buran]

You might want to take a look at astronautix.com's Apollo pages -- they've got some info on some weird variants! Like an anti-satellite (and legless) interceptor version of the lunar module. I don't think any of these ever went past the design idea stage, but it's interesting to read anyway.

The "Soviet weapons platform" in Space Cowboys looks like it's about the right size for a Saturn V third stage, actually, now that you mention it.

No kidding?

[leonbrooks]

A local school recently tried to teach the embryonic recapitulation theory ("it's not a little baby person, its just a [pick one of fish/crocodile/bunch'o'cells/dog/dinosaur] so far") to a child I know, and that's been known to be a fraud for about 140 years (tongue firmly in cheek? of we go, then) so far.

I'm fairly sure that this rocket doesn't have scales, though... (g/d/r).

Re:Trick or Treat, Negro Style

[Illbay]

After all that bloviating, though, the fact is that Rush was RIGHT. It doesn't matter that Warren Moon had already "made it" as a black quarterback. It doesn't matter that, even before him, Doug Williams had made it as a black quarterback, or that Joe Gilliam and James Harris played even before him (though not to the same level of success), or that today there are no less than SEVEN black starting QBs in the NFL including McNabb.

That was NEVER the point of Limbaugh's comments.

Limbaugh, rather, was stating that were it not for the "unwritten rules" of sports journalism, Donovan McNabb would NEVER be considered a "great quarterback." The "unwritten rules" include an "affirmative action" clause whereby a mediocre black quarterback has to be "propped up" and made to appear brilliant, because there "aren't enough of them."

And Rush could've named yet another mediocre QB talent who happens to be black: Kordell Stewart who now plays for the Bears. Even though Stewart has had a very disappointing career--spending about as much time on the injured list as on the playing field in Pittsburgh and now Chicago--you typically have always heard HIM propped up as well.

Stewart's hurt again, so he's out for the season. And he and McNabb have something ELSE in common: All the other black starting QBs, such as Daunte Culpepper of the Vikings, Aaron Brooks of the Saints, and the best of the whole lot--in fact, one of the best QBs in the league--Steve McNair of the Titans, play in small markets that the national (read: bicoastal) media doesn't give a hoot about.

McNabb plays in Philadelphia, one of the top ten TV markets.

And THAT'S why he gets touted as a "premier" QB, even though he ranks in the bottom half of the league in QB rating.

So once again, RUSH WAS RIGHT, even though the Left has to lie about what he said and about what it all means. He was right, and nothing that anyone else has to write about it--including me--can alter that FACT.

Re:Trick or Treat, Negro Style

[Illbay]

Let's face it, fans and sportscasters alike enjoy watching a quarterback who can scramble and can turn a play that looks like a sack into a big play to get positive yardage.

If that were true, then it would be "all Steve McNair, all the time."

But the following facts are pertinent:

1. McNair is a GREAT quarterback--probably one of the three or four best in the league--and so he doesn't need the Affirmative Action props from the media elitists.

2. McNair plays in a small market in the South, not a large market in the Northeast, so he is irrelevant as far as generating the ratings that the media elitists covet.

No, Rush was right: McNabb gets the ink and the airwaves because he is a mediocre black quarterback and needs propping up. He's an affirmative action case.