Hot Rod Job For SpaceShipOne

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-09-13 16:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

In related news... by nkrumm · 2004-09-13 16:46 · Score: 5, Funny

In related news the name of the project has been changed to RiceRocketOne.

Re:In related news... by ravenspear · 2004-09-13 16:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, especially with a five foot tip.
Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 16:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, I'm wondering where the "R Type" sticker, the spinning rims, neon lights, crookedly mounted (and way too tall) wing are.

Actually, I'm disappointed. :(

But hey, you've got to look at it in the "glass half full" way. They've got the thundering bass, and just look at the size of that exhaust tip (fart can).
Re:In related news... by Any+Web+Loco · 2004-09-13 17:05 · Score: 4, Funny

All the shuttle needs now is some Type-R stickers & it's good to go.
Re:In related news... by ottothecow · 2004-09-14 08:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Slashdot always gets this one wrong. Spoilers do not provide downforce, wings do.
Spoilers break up the vacuume created behind an quickly accelerated car and can actually have a large effect (and at driveable speeds). So putting a spoiler on a FWD car has plenty of effect (providing it is a real aero spoiler and not just for looks).
Now, a wing--which is what most ricers have anyways--will provide downforce on to the whole car, but primarily onto hte back wheels and therefore as you said, will do nothing for a FWD car. The wing also does not help acceleration...it helps cornering by holding hte car down when it is at speed (and therefore COULD help a FWD car). Pushing down on the car actually creates the effect of more weight and woudl decrease accleration, but would apply more grip to the tires at speed. In low speed acceleration (where you're wheels are most likely to lose traction and spin) the wing wont have enough downforce to make a difference...
So yes, a wing is pointless on a drag-civic, but not a spoiler or a full aero kit.
Disclaimer: I am not a honda fanboy...I am however a big fan of german cars and the best example of a real spoiler is the big whale tail on older 911's. And yes, when I see a riced out GTI or somethign with a wing and altezza's...I dont find it anymore attractive than a riced out honda. Just make your cars look right people...if something doesnt fit the image, dont bother.

--
Bottles.

Oooh by iamdrscience · 2004-09-13 16:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Next up: Spoiler, racing stripes and a window decal that says "Outta Space!".

The racing stripes alone decrease wind resistance by 17% you know.

Re:Oooh by iamdrscience · 2004-09-13 16:57 · Score: 5, Funny

No no, "If you can read this, you're SpaceshipTwo".
Re:Oooh by evilviper · 2004-09-13 22:03 · Score: 2, Funny

The racing stripes alone decrease wind resistance by 17% you know.

And every spaceship needs "speed holes".

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Oooh by errxn · 2004-09-14 03:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Don't forget the obligatory "Calvin taking a whiz on the NASA logo" sticker.

--
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.

Just say N2O by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-13 16:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Using just a nitrous oxide charger and a balloon, I was never higher than low Earth orbit. But with a 60L tank, a garbage bag, and a mattress to jump on, I achieved full astral projection, even interdimensional travel! I recommend a complete crew of 1 extra spotter breathing 21:78:1 O2:N2:Ar2, for a safe return voyage. YMMV.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Just say N2O by nateb · 2004-09-13 18:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Ar is noble, isn't it? So that'd be O2:N2:Ar?

--
-- Nate
Re:Just say N2O by syukton · 2004-09-13 20:12 · Score: 2, Informative

The atmopshere is about 1% Argon. The distribution 21:78:1 is roughly that of an "ideal" human atmosphere. And just because it's noble doesn't mean it doesn't get involved with other atoms sometimes, which may make it a very necessary component to the workings of things.

Wikipedia: Argon

--
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Re:Just say N2O by deimtee · 2004-09-13 22:36 · Score: 3, Informative

And just because it's noble doesn't mean it doesn't get involved with other atoms sometimes,

Actually that pretty much IS what noble means.
Chemists have to work fairly hard and use some rather extreme conditions to get noble gases to react with anything.

--
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Re:Just say N2O by syukton · 2004-09-13 23:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, noble means that an element doesn't usually get involved with other elements. Sometimes, however, under unique and rare conditions (pulsed lasers, low/high temperatures, high voltages) you can coerce noble elements into forming compounds with other elements. Just because it's noble doesn't mean that it doesn't get involved with other atoms sometimes, on occasion, though not often.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it's an esoteric reaction between Argon and Carbon inside your brain that makes you self-aware?

--
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Re:Just say N2O by deimtee · 2004-09-14 01:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah sure, my head is full of pulsed lasers and extreme temperatures : )
Have you actually seen the conditions under which a compound involving a noble gas will even form, let alone hold together? Chemists get nobel prizes for that sort of thing.
I don't think the conditions inside anyone's head are actually that extreme.

--
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Re:Just say N2O by jackbird · 2004-09-14 01:46 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not Nobel material. Actually there are a bunch of noble gas compunds. When Neil Bartlett synthesized the first in 1962, his paper concluded:
"It is surely not without interest that no essentially new type of bonding needs to be postulated, and that conventional theories are able to account in a semi-quantitative way for almost all known experimental facts in this interesting series of molecules. It is no exaggeration to say that in principle almost everything described in this survey could have been said thirty years ago." (The Norton History of Chemistry, 1st ed., p. 340)
In other words, it was an accomplishment of open-mindedness, not one of scientific brilliance.

Re:*** Questionable Content Detected *** by DarkMantle · 2004-09-13 16:47 · Score: 4, Funny

It kinda looks like one with wings too.

Even so, I can't wait till I can go for vacation on the moon. Now THAT would be getting away from it all.

--
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.

Only one thing to do... by hookedup · 2004-09-13 16:47 · Score: 4, Funny

*Insert Tim Allen grunts*

Wasting precious resources by WillWare · 2004-09-13 16:50 · Score: 4, Funny

They've got a big tank of nitrous oxide and they're using it as rocket fuel? Priorities here, people!

--
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?

Re:Wasting precious resources by AndroidCat · 2004-09-13 17:00 · Score: 5, Informative

The nitrous oxide is the oxidizer, they use rubber for fuel.
SpaceShipOne uses a hybrid rocket engine that uses both liquid and solid propellant to propel it into space. The complete system consists of a liquid nitrous oxide (or laughing gas) oxidizer and a solid form of rubber fuel, which are burned together for about 76 seconds during an average flight, Benson said.
They really are burning rubber into space.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Wasting precious resources by interiot · 2004-09-13 18:19 · Score: 4, Informative
More here.
- SpaceShipOne burns ... HTPB, a common ingredient in tire rubber.
- In conventional rockets, propellant can be pre-mixed -- as in the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) used NASA space shuttle -- or sit in tanks that are filled just prior to launch, like liquid oxygen and hydrogen rockets. In both engine configurations, the are highly volatile and can be toxic to handle.
  "The fact that the oxidizer and fuel are not molecularly mixed in these [hybrid] engines, makes them non-explosive," explained Greg Zilliac, a hybrid engine researcher at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. "We've actually shipped fuel grains by UPS in the past."
Re:Wasting precious resources by Rei · 2004-09-13 19:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yeah. It's an easy fuel/oxidizer combo, but not very scalable. The specific impulse is just too low, and the nitrous tank too heavy. I do find it funny that they described hybrid rocket engines as not being "conventional rockets" ;)

And before some of the posters here start going off on a "Specific impulse isn't everything!" line, I'll add: It's not everything, but it is *incredibly* important. And if you can't have lightweight tanks to compensate for your loss of specific impulse (which you can't with nitrous), you're not going to scale. Plus, using a carrier launch, you're not going to handle the spiralling mass increase very well.

In short, this type of design, while great for getting the X-prize (it's very simple - self pressurizing, no liquid/liquid combustion, etc), would never scale to orbit. I'd like to see a good tow-launch LOX/subcooled propane rocket; that should be scalable and yet still take advantage of air breathing power to get to altitude, and wouldn't have to deal with LH.

What everyone hopes for are some of the things that are on the horizon, that have high ISP without the various tank mass or cryogenic limitations. For example, alane (stabilized aluminum hydride) hybrid boosters, which have an ISP that even with a weaker oxidizer like H2O2, nears LOX/LH's isp, and a very high density. Everyone in rocketry would like such a panacea; however, for now, everyone has different opinions on what is the best way to go.

--
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
Re:Wasting precious resources by j7953 · 2004-09-14 02:35 · Score: 2, Funny

And if you can't have lightweight tanks to compensate for your loss of specific impulse (which you can't with nitrous), you're not going to scale.

That doesn't matter though. The company we're talking about here already is Scaled.

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Re:Wasting precious resources by khrtt · 2004-09-14 04:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

You are right about one thing, they seem to have chosen the lowest-possible performance design on all counts:

1. Solid fuel = makes the whole fuel tank a propulsion chamber = large thick heavy wall -- compared to liquid fuel, where the pressure wall is just the little combustion chamber in the engine.

2. Pressure fed oxidizer = thick walled heavy tank - compared to pump-fed design.

3. There are fuels with much higher energy contents than HTPB/NOX.

But then, you don't know what they did to the HTPB, but they did do something, otherwise the thing wouldn't burn fast enough to push a shopping cart, lest a space rocket. Whatever they did, maybe it had an effect on Isp as well.

Secondly, you don't know what that N2O tank is made of. It could be some super-strong composite, rather than fiberglass/metal.

And of course, they use high-altitude air-launch, which improves the mass ratio required for orbit.

Overall, it looks like the engine takes up only a small portion of RubberRocketOne, compared to any old booster. So there is room to improve the mass ratio right there by putting in a biger engine.

I'd kinda like to see some calculations, but without knowing the weight of the ship and the material of the nitrous tank it would be difficult to calculate anything interesting.
Re:Wasting precious resources by Rei · 2004-09-14 05:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Generally aluminum alloys or fiber. But that's largely irrelevant for this discussion; the key issue with nitrous tanks is that they need to be able to withstand *pressure*.

You can pressurize the oxidizer tank in liquid/liquid biprop rockets, too, but people don't usually do it for large rockets (only small ones). Why? It means that you have to have thick (read: heavy) tank walls, and if you cut corners, you risk a catastrophic explosion.

--
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
Re:Wasting precious resources by Rei · 2004-09-14 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Whatever they did, maybe it had an effect on Isp as well.

http://www.astronautix.com/stages/spaipone.htm

Nope. Besides, the N2O is as much of a problem as the fuel. It's a worse oxidizer than nitric acid and peroxide, which are both worse oxidizers than LOX (which is a worse oxidizer than FLOX, and especially than LF2, but few use the former and noone uses the latter)

> Secondly, you don't know what that N2O tank is made of.

Irrelevant. Because whatever it's made of, you could make a non-pressurized tank in a turbopump-fed rocket far lighter using the same material. Pressurized tanks have to be built a lot thicker than nonpressurized tanks, whatever you build them out of.

> And of course, the use high-altitude air-launch, which improves the mass ratio required for orbit

Not if they have to scale their craft up. With an ISP and tanks like this, they'd require a carrier craft that makes the An-255 look like a moquito by comparison. You'd be lucky to get such a huge carrier to lift it's own weight, since you'd need so much structural reinforcement.

> Overall, it looks like the engine takes up only a small portion of RubberRocketOne

But a major portion of its mass - and this will only get far worse due to the low ISP (btw, I assume you mean "tank" and "fuel/oxidizer").

--
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
Re:Wasting precious resources by IBX · 2004-09-14 10:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Alane: I work with LiAlH4 frequently. This solid has to be kept very dry - or sparks will fly. This is definitely unsafe fuel in a manned flight. And it is a very expensive material to burn.
As a rule, custom synthesis chemical companies do not like to work with LiAlH4 on kilo scale - they prefer safer alternatives for large-scale reductions. If they use it, they charge hefty premium because of the safety risks involved.(Unstabilized alane does not even need moisture - it self-ignites on air).

Wall thickness (weight) of the oxidizer tank (for nitrous oxide) can be reduced with moderate refrigeration, -20C for example, which cheap to do and well above the boiling point of N2O (so the engine would still work without need for a turbopump). Nitrous could be stored separately and filled in before flight, refrigerated. Tank would need a safety valve to prevent over-pressure.

Engine tweaking.. by iamdrscience · 2004-09-13 16:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Nitrous, eh? I give it 15 years, tops, before all the ricers start to get their hands on these and put ground effects and body kits on all of them.

On the plus side, if they crash them while driving like idiots they'll be even more likely to kill themselves.

I love evolution.

Re:Engine tweaking.. by Usquebaugh · 2004-09-13 16:58 · Score: 3, Funny

"I love evolution"

What's it look like from the side lines?
Re:Engine tweaking.. by onepoint · 2004-09-14 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, the fact ( from personal usage ) is that Nitrous injection via a plate between the fuel injection and the manifold has been around 1983. I also saw a mazda with a rotary motor having water injection and was told that it had No2. Seen Honda's that are pulling clean 13's (seconds) with No2 since late 80's. Had a Cosworth motor that could redline at 11K, that I ran No2 ( very light system due to fears ) to help me out of curves.

I can not recall the exact engine ( air ), but the year is 1944, the p-38 lightning ( Britains order) and the engine for the Huricane had No2 systems installed, tested, and aproved for usage ( if used I have no details ).

Onepoint

--
if you see me, smile and say hello.

Green monster in space by poptones · 2004-09-13 17:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Look at the cutaway - it really is a "hot rod." It appears the n2o tank is, like, six feet in diameter and right behind the crew with the engine right behind that. Yeesh, it's almost like one of those jet powered dragsters with wings - and some brave soul is gonna take it into space? I guess the next evolution will be nothing more than a good flight suit, an engine, and some carbon fiber bungee cords...

American Spaceship by ktakki · 2004-09-13 17:18 · Score: 5, Funny

I hope the Discovery Channel picks this up next season...

MONDAY VINNY Senior says that we have to have this spaceship ready for the X-Prize in November, but I just don't see it happening. We're just halfway through the mock-up and the combustion chamber has to be at the chromers by tomorrow. TUESDAY MIKEY (Takes out the trash) WEDNESDAY PAUL, JR. Whenever we do a theme spaceship, we always run into some problem. Like with this one, the attitude control thrusters were too close to the sissy bar. But Cody came through when he reversed the polarity of the positronic matrix and reconfigured the EPS conduits to emit tachyons through the deflector shields. THURSDAY PAUL, SR. I really had my doubts about this spaceship, but Justin came through in the end. He did a killer job on the tins and the flames and pinstripes on the body really make the design work.

k.

--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

Re:American Spaceship by doormat · 2004-09-13 17:25 · Score: 2, Funny

If I had mod points, you'd get them ALL!

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.

Re:OT: how does NOx work in cars? by Sooner+Boomer · 2004-09-13 17:27 · Score: 5, Informative

" Can somebody tell me what nitrous oxide does in a car engine? It's not a flammable gas, is it?"

In a word, oxygen - nitrous contains more oxygen than air and is in a highly dense liquid form. In a car engine, nitrous, along with additional fuel is squirted into the intake. In the hybrid rocket engine, a large cylinder of rubber is the fuel; the nitrous is the oxidizer.

--
Chaos maximizes locally around me.

Re:OT: how does NOx work in cars? by CreateWindowEx · 2004-09-13 17:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Since combustion of one unit of gasoline requires more than ten units of air (containing oxygen), most car engines are limited by how much air they can get into the cylinders--it's fairly easy to just squirt more fuel, but to get more air in you have to either force it in with a turbocharger or a supercharger or reduce sources of friction on the way in (lower-restriction air intakes, etc) or fool with cam timing. Nitrous oxide is a cheap and easy way of adding more oxygen for a short period of time, plus it has the added benefit of helping to cool the cylinders, preventing "knocking" (premature ignition of the fuel by "hot spots" in the engine == $$$ if left unchecked).

Usually nitrous oxide systems are set up to inject extra fuel along with the nitrous oxide to keep the correct fuel/oxygen ratio.

As an aside, F&F fans should realize that NOS (Nawz) is the logo of Nitrous Oxide Systems, not a chemical abreviation for nitrious oxide, although they spend a lot of money trying to get their name associated with it.

Still doesn't beat the DaVinci project by markomarko · 2004-09-13 17:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Once fueled by Canadian ingenuity (and an old german rocket design), Canada's entry in the space race is now powered by faded dreams, bankruptcy, and lucky number seven!

That's right, we're powered by the online casino goldenpalace.com. One particularly enthusiastic Canadian space race supporter jumped off a diving board at the Olympics wearing a pink tutu to draw further support for the program. If only we could get goldenpalace.com to support our olympic athletes. 12 medals total. blech.

Re:Homer by AlexMidn1ght · 2004-09-13 19:24 · Score: 2, Funny

That's actually two words :P

Re:OT: how does NOx work in cars? by OldJohnno · 2004-09-13 19:36 · Score: 4, Informative

The oxygen component actually provides only a small part of the power increase. NO2 has an extremely high latent heat of vapourisation - in other words it absorbs massive amounts of heat when it is injected and vapourises. This tremendous cooling effect allows a much denser cylinder charge and requires (a lot) more fuel be injected along with the NO2 to maintain the correct fuel/air ratio.

OB Simpsons by laejoh · 2004-09-13 23:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Buzz: Homer, you broke the handle. Race: With that hatch open, we'll burn up on re-entry! That's it: if I go, I'm taking you to hell with me. Homer: Wait a minute, Race. Wait a minute...wait! [breaks off a support rod] Aha! Now I'll bust that pretty face of yours! [tries to swing it, but it catches in the door] Aw, stupid bar. Buzz: Wait, Homer. If that bar holds, we just might make it back to earth. Homer: Oh. [voice rising] I'll bash you good! -- One-track minds, "Deep Space Homer"

Changes made to improve flight profile by hpulley · 2004-09-14 00:18 · Score: 4, Informative

What has not yet been mentioned in this /. discussion is briefly, though not directly, mentioned in the aforementioned space.com article. The changes to the engine were made at least partly to offset the previous glitch encountered during the previous flight. "...the increased liquid nitrous oxide should delay that drop off and provide more thrust earlier in the flight, when SpaceShipOne's control surfaces can still bite into the Earth's atmosphere for steering." They hope this will allow them to reach their target altitude this time (almost missed the space altitude last time) without having to resort to secondary guidance systems.

--
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???

did they test it? by bwy · 2004-09-14 00:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder how much testing this new engine config has received? I don't believe it has gotten any flight time- it would have to be all ground tests.

Seems kind of concerning to me. When I finish working on my car, it sure as hell might crank up and idle okay in the garage but it is usually hit or miss the first time I take it on a road test. Obviously, these guys are better rocket scientists than I am a car mechanic, but you get the point...

What isn't said... by RayBender · 2004-09-14 00:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

is why they are hot-rodding the vehicle. I saw mention that the increased burn time would allow SpaceShipOne to achieve higher speed at lower altitude "where the control surfaces can bite into the air"; this tells me they are working to fix the near-disaster they had on the last flight. It sounds like they have no control authority outside the atmosphere - i.e. that whatever reaction-jet system they have isn't working well, and they are having to jury-rig a fix. Increasing the impulse of a rocket by 20% (which is what they are doing) is a significant, and risky, change. They wouldn't be doing it unless they had to.

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?

Course Now.. by bigattichouse · 2004-09-14 01:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Modifications in design invalidate the hardware test, and put it up there in the "risky" category again... esp. with the modification being an increase in the amount of fuel hangin' around. I hope they had this intent in the first phase (we start with this size tank, and move up to this one later)...

--
meh

New Version Number? by permaculture · 2004-09-14 01:26 · Score: 4, Funny

So it's not yet SpaceShipTwo.

SpaceShip1.2, perhaps?

--
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.

Re:Scaling? by Rei · 2004-09-14 05:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Nitrous oxide suffers from the same problems that a rocket without a turbopump (using instead gas pressurized tanks) suffers from: the tanks need to be built with thicker walls to withstand the pressure, which makes the rocket a lot heavier. While small, simple rockets will sometimes pressurize their tanks, few big rockets ever do - it just plain adds too much weight, and increases the risk of catastrophic explosion if you cut corners.

--
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!

46 of 132 comments (clear)