Slashdot Mirror
Rocket-Powered 21-Foot Long X-Wing Actually Flies
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that some crazy California enthusiasts have built a 21-foot long model of an X-Wing. While this might be impressive in its own right, this model actually flies. Powered by four solid-fuel rocket engines the group has high hopes for their launch next week. Let's hope the built-in R2 unit makes it out ok.
...even an X-wing can fly.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I keep seeing this story in various places. They all say "this model actually flies." The thing is, afaict, it's only ever "flown" in simulation. I don't mean to be mean, but you can't really say an aircraft flies until it actually gets up off the ground.
"In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
The headline is the same from Gizmodo. It's really an X-wing model he PLANS to fly. Check back next week for the success or failure.
"R2, that stabilizer has broken free again... see if you can't lock it down...
While I applaud the effort, I have a bad feeling about this. If one of the four solid rocket motors fails to ignite or ignites early/late, you're going to have a 22 foot (or more) long pile of scrap wood and aluminum.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I always assumed the wings were for mounting weapons.
Reality is fluffy!
With all due respect, Anonymous Coward, fuck off. People without hobbies eventually will go insane.
From my extensive model rocketry background getting multiple rockets to fire all at once is incredibly hard. getting 4 of them to fire at once spread out that far apart will be a nightmare. clustered together one misfire or late fire will not affect the trajectory too much, that far apart it will affect the trajectory dramatically, one not firing on one side will spin it out of control as soon as it leaves the launch rod. one late firing will turn it really hard at the end of the burn.
I hope they are completely ok with it pinwheeling out of control along the ground as the chances of that happening are higher than most suspect.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'd pay money to see that.
Especially if there was a BBQ afterwords ( during? ).
A Human Right
How about the homeless build their own damn house? Why do people with jobs, and houses, have to support every one that does not.
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
This is what happens when people with too much money and creativity decide to do something completely useless. How about they strip off the rockets and find a way to make a house for homeless people?
So why are you anonymously trolling on Slashdot instead of out there feeding the poor, curing cancer, or rescuing lost puppies?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The homeless are welcome to their hobbies as well.
To sell more toys.
We are called to serve with humility, not arrogance. By coming on a public board and making a rant about not helping the homeless, you only hurt yourself. Be humble, and serve those that need your service. It isn't your position to attack others for not being as much of a humanitarian as you. If you brag about your own works they will burn as straw, but if you humbly serve wanting nothing in return they will be eternal.
Keep in mind that the X-wing fighters did classical banked-turns in the dogfights in and around the Death Stars. Not only do you need wings for a banked turn, you need an atmosphere.
If you assume that the major motive force is all from the main engine(s) you realize that in a turn the engines will be firing essentially away from the center-point of the turn. In other words, the thrust in an atmospheric banked turn is almost (almost because of "forward" thrust) 90 degrees off of a turn in a vacuum. Beyond that, with "advanced technology" it should be readily feasible to have thrusts that would at least black out the pilot, if not turn him into jelly. I guess that's what "inertial dampers" (Star Trek, not Star Wars, I know) are for.
The easy explanation for atmospheric-style banked turns was that the Death Star actually had some atmosphere around it, kept in place by artificial gravity fields. The really odd thing about that is that you would then expect it to be laid out like an onion, with the floor of each deck toward the center, whereas the floors of at least the hangar decks were perpendicular to the surface. That would mean secondary artificial gravity expressly for the purpose of holding a local exterior atmosphere. The other reason to have an exterior atmosphere would be for Tad and Bink, or whoever the heck those two guys were, to scrape and paint the exterior hull plating.
The even easier explanation was that Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's a swashbuckler. Scientific accuracy need not apply, especially if it conflicts with ordinary expectations of the viewers. Since most viewers don't have or haven't reasoned out such implications of spaceflight, atmospheric flight expectations rule. (Notice that I haven't even gotten into orbital dynamics, yet.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I presume they'll be using Aerotech, but I'm curious what impulse level they're planning. At the take off weight, this is going to need some serious thrust. I'm not a high-power guy but a casual BAR (born-again rocketeer); I build and fly black-powder based models with my 5 year old, and just got my first composite mid-power kit airborne last week. Back in my day, mid/high power didn't even exist, as far as I know - the Estes D was the "big one". Those are little engines nowadays.
As for those asking "Why?" the answer is simple - because they can. Model rocketry is fun, and a bit of a show-off hobby (like many others). I don't have the spare change to go out and drop 4 figures on a big rocket, and then several hundred per flight on the propulsion. All depends on your priorities and what makes your nipples hard.
I hope it flies well and has a safe recovery. It's neat to see the hobby get some legs; it's one of those applied-science areas that kids can get involved in that's also a lot of fun.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You can train as a bush pilot all you want, but when circumstances change significantly, that training may not be valid. Putting bush pilots into spacecraft with no extra training makes a good movie, but it's even less realistic than putting a frequently-drunk crop-duster played by Randy Quaid into the cockpit of an F16.
As for being constrained, you're right. But remember that in an atmospheric banked turn, much of the centripetal force is supplied by the wings acting against the atmosphere. In space, there ain't no such thing - all centripetal force is supplied by yaw and the main engines. A tight turn in space simply won't look like a tight turn in an atmosphere, in fact it will look WRONG to our conventional sensibilities.
Then again, there's the ultimate argument - it was just a movie, a swashbuckler. Not only that, the first movie was done on a shoestring, and somehow I doubt there was anyone on the payroll to square anything with scientific accuracy.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I'm pretty sure we've seen X-Wing fighters do atmospheric maneuvering.
Sheesh, we've seen X-Wing fighters do atmospheric maneuvers in hard vacuum. And face it, that's just silly.
That's why I prefer the other "X-Foil" spaceship in pop SF TV canon. At least Babylon 5 came up with apparently realistic physics for spacecraft movement and a feasible rational for the X-style "wings": maximizing rotational moment available from the thrust of the engines for maximum slew rate.
Hmmm... I've got a fever, and the only prescription, is a flying scale model of a Starfury Thunderbolt. Yah. Definitely.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
last time I heard, many great discoveries/inventions were through people doing random hobbies that others thought were either stupid or useless( davinci and his concept we now know as a helicopter, anyone). Whilst I don't think these guys are going to revolutionize aircraft design as we know it a one in a million chance says the accidentally could.
in other words, your comment has no point to it and you should probably go and do something that will benefit someone instead of ranting.
When people ask if I'm an optimist, I say "I hope so". --Bill Bailey
Because a society without such safety nets will accumulate large amounts of disenfranchised people who have nothing to lose but their chains, and the choices at that point are brutal oppression to keep them down or a bloody revolution. And once the homeless are under the iron heel, what's stopping those higher up in the social ladder than yourself from putting you under it too ?
I, for one, prefer to live in a relatively peaceful and free society. And the only way to achieve those qualities simultaneously is to have social justice, at least enough that people have more to lose than gain by making trouble. Humans are predators, and a hungry predator is a dangerous predator, especially if it also hates your guts for the perceived injustice of being hungry and homeless while you have a job and house and refuse to share any of your resources.
"Every man for himself" might seem good on paper, but it's good to remember that when Social Darwinism rules, "cutthroat competition" stops being a metaphor.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.