Slashdot Mirror


Inventor to Launch Pop Bottle Rocket into Space

DrButts writes "An inventor in British Columbia wants to be the first to launch a pop bottle rocket into space. 'This could be impossible, but the CEO of AntiGravity Research already holds the altitude record for boosting an elongated plastic pop bottle — propelled by a bicycle pump, water and a bit of soap — into the air. Firing the ubiquitous, two-litre plastic container usually consigned to the recycle bin into space might create a whole new definition for space junk, but the dream keeps Schellenberg going.'"

80 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Volume by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The sin qua non issue here is volume. TFA speaks of 'stretching' the bottles. If you are allowed to increase volume enough when stretching, then, yes, a coke bottle might make it into space. It requires stretching the bottle so that it's volume is several orders of magnitude larger than the original, then putting on lots of carbon fiber ( as per TFA ) on it.

    Since TFA speaks of A coke bottle, I assume we aren't allowed multi-staging. But some of the effects of staging could be achieved - I think - with different fluids. At the bottom would be a layer of mercury with some depleted uranium dissolved in it. Next is the water layer. Maybe the third layer would be a hydrocarbon of some sort ( perhaps chosen for it's ability to dissolve gasses under high pressure, thus using precious volume for both compressed air and reaction mass.

    Personally, I don't want to be anywhere near this contraption at liftoff, when it is spraying tons of toxic heavy metals all over. But I do want to see the video on youtube.

    1. Re:Volume by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Excellent use of the Gmail "Word Of The Day"...

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    2. Re:Volume by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't it "sine qua non," or have I been using the phrase incorrectly my entire life? A quick search for "sin qua non" leads to nothing but "sine" versions of it.

    3. Re:Volume by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 5, Funny

      It might be sine, 'cos it tan't sin...

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    4. Re:Volume by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hate to be a pestiferous virago and contradict your amative mien, but in my opinion the aberrant misspelling of said "word of the day" was not copacetic. It may be ineffectual, but some day I hope to overcome this perdurable ennui...

    5. Re:Volume by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      I laffed so hard I dropped a log

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Volume by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unless you mean longitudinal "stretching", I can imagine this fat, spherical bottle offering too much cross sectional area (and therefore drag) to be able to go any far. There's a reason rockets are the shape that they are. Dunno how far you can stretch a pop bottle along its length, though. I guess I'll leave that to the "real scientists", lol.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Volume by wall0159 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Gosh mate - if you're gonna be all clever with a dictionary, at lease use an English dictionary!

    8. Re:Volume by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let me guess, you're canadian(from the log thing)?

      Are you going to bake a pi now, e?

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    9. Re:Volume by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 3, Informative
      From TFA:

      Based on that research, Schellenberg is now convinced that it will be possible to put a bottle rocket into orbit. In preparation, he's working on sending a modified two-stage rocket - reinforced with ultra-strong carbon-fibre and fuelled by liquid CO2 - up about five kilometres.
      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    10. Re:Volume by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wouldn't filling the bottle with hydrogen peroxide under pressure and expanded and then using some for of catalyst like Nickel to react with the peroxide work just effectively?

      I know theory and practice often make fun of each other, but I would think that he could use the same type of metrics but with a soft bladder or something separating the peroxide from the catalyst and held in place by pumping the pressure on the opposite side to equalize the effects of the peroxide. Liquid isn't really compressible but the bottle's expansion could be the pressure point. And once it is launched by traditional air or air-liquid launch, the pressure drops on one side allowing the peroxide to flow through then the heat generation could and pressure would hold it back but still allowing it to expand as it hits the catalyst and effectively creating a rocket engine.

      I don't know how much pressure could be harnessed this way but it is essentially the same concept of a jet pack. Except the weight to thrust ratio would be extremely different. You could end up with 4 or 5 pounds of fuel to a quarter pound object or to put it more excitingly, some older jetpacks or rocket belts generate about 185 lbs 280-300 lbs of thrust for over 21 seconds. In contrast and using some number conversions for impressively big numbers, that could be around 4800 onces of thrust for a 4-12 once object before fuel weight.

      Of course I could be off here a bit, and I don't know how to translate thrust and burn time to distance covered. I suspect that has to do a lot with the total weight and some way to account for the loss from fuel spent and specific thrust sizes and pulses and all that jazz. And I'm also not sure if this type of fuel would be effective at altitude. And while this isn't technically burning, it might not be what he is looking for.

    11. Re:Volume by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wish I had mod points for you, very few times have I been sent scurrying to a dictionary just to figure out what it was that I was reading. I must not have such an expansive lexicon as I once thought. Install the 'Dictionary.com word of the day' into your iGoogle page. If you had, you'd know he just used the words of the day from the last few days very successfully. :-D

    12. Re:Volume by popmaker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come on now, be rational!

    13. Re:Volume by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2, Funny

      J'm not jojnjng jn wjth any of thjs nonsense, J'm an engjneer........

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    14. Re:Volume by Trogre · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well in that case, let me offer my heartiest contrafibularities.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    15. Re:Volume by mapsjanhere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If he's really making a pressure vessel with substantial pressure resistance out of the soda bottle using carbon fiber - he's most likely cheating. Stretching a thin PET bottle is easily possible. Just "wrapping" it with carbon fiber doesn't do anything for your vessel, since the fibers would immediately go out of alignment and your thin inner shell blows. What he most likely is doing is forming a PET mandrel out of his cola bottle, then apply a carbon fiber - epoxy coat around it. Depending on his technique (use a nice filament winder if you got one) you can make the equivalent of a scuba tank easily using that approach. The problem is, as mention in several other posts, that you can only stretch a pressure vessel that far without loosing a lot of stability, even if it's a well designed carbon fiber reinforced outer shell (you don't really want kevlar for this, kevlar is good for bullet proof wests that need to take impact, but not as good for pure tensile applications). So you balance extra drag from a fat vessel against extra propulsion medium. As for reaching space with a pure "stored physical energy" device, you'd need a long blow time in a rather cold environment, while at the same time your medium is cooling due to expansion/evaporation. Unless he's got his hand on a plutonium battery to keep the whole shebang warmed with reasonable weight penalty I don't think it will go very far in the best of cases. I can't wait for the /. headline about the nuclear powered pop rocket.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    16. Re:Volume by 3vi1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      >> At the bottom would be a layer of mercury with some depleted uranium dissolved in it. Next is the water layer.

      Is that before or after he dumps the Coke out?

    17. Re:Volume by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny
      I must not have such an expansive lexicon as I once thought.

      There are pills for that now. Didn't you get the email?

  2. Uh.... right. by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has he even broken Mach 1 yet?

    1. Re:Uh.... right. by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's from British Columbia... they don't need jet fuel to fly. Hell, they smoke anything out there... I even hear tell they smoke salmon.

      Seriously, though, I've met this guy before, and the definition of "space" might be a little loose, but crazy wins over reality, every time.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    2. Re:Uh.... right. by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Informative

      Has he even broken Mach 1 yet?

      There's actually not much in the way of a rule that says something going into orbit has to reach 'escape velocity'.

      That's a barrier for barking huge spacecraft, but if you went slowly, and gradually kept up the acceleration, you'd get into space, and with a little assistance from Earth's own gravitational well you could slingshot out and away into interplanetary space.

    3. Re:Uh.... right. by rcw-work · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's actually not much in the way of a rule that says something going into orbit has to reach 'escape velocity'.

      No, but you have to get almost there. Low Earth Orbit is 7.8km/s, escape velocity is 11.2km/s. In addition, any non-escape ballistic trajectory that starts from the earth will form an ellipse that will eventually intersect the earth, meaning your rocket must accelerate sideways a fair bit once it's up there.

      You need much less speed to merely reach space and fall back down, but the article clearly said 'orbit'.

    4. Re:Uh.... right. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And for that matter, there's nothing at least in the summary that says anything about orbit... just space. Technically, that refers to an altitude, not a velocity. Yeah, something launched would fall back down to earth if it didn't have enough momentum to break out of the Earth's gravity well, but that doesn't mean such an object didn't reach space, at least by the traditional definition thereof.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Uh.... right. by monopole · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, not quite. Admittedly, if you had a very high lift wing (or a big balloon) you could make it to the upper atmosphere that way, but once past the atmosphere at some point you would have to get to orbital velocity, well in excess of Mach 1 at ground level (past the atmosphere Mach numbers have no meaning). A rocket has a fixed delta v which it has to expend to get where it's going, the more of it that it expends to cancel gravitational acceleration the more fuel is wasted. Once in a reasonably high orbit, one could use a slow thrust method like a solar sail to get out of the gravity well.
      As for an unpowered slingshot assist, totally impossible. Slingshot assists operate by following a trajectory from outside the gravity well, into it, transferring a bit of the momentum of the planet to the spacecraft.

    6. Re:Uh.... right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first space trips (even those by manned capsules) were suborbital flights (not a stable orbit)

    7. Re:Uh.... right. by cuantar · · Score: 3, Informative

      But when you finally got into space, you'd be (very nearly) moving at escape velocity. That's how we define escape velocity, after all: it's the speed required to overcome the earth's gravitational attraction. The difference between your actual speed and escape velocity will be negligible once you're far enough away, but you have to get there or you can't escape. It's easy to show mathematically.

      --
      Legalize it.
  3. But what if... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Funny

    What if the bottle rocket eventually encounters an advanced civilization, who enhance it and sent it back to Earth on a mission of death and destruction? Hasn't this fool learned anything from what happened to Voyager/VGER?

    1. Re:But what if... by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or better yet, it falls from the sky and they start worshiping it..... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/

      Layne

    2. Re:But what if... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they'd probably send back pamphlets detailing the benefits of recycling plastic bottles.

            Yes because chopping down trees to create pamphlets to send to another planet is much more ecologically sound than sending them our plastic ;)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:But what if... by GenJox · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did not worship the bottle that fell from the sky. Being the hardest substance ever encountered by them (glass) and having a whole host of uses, it introduced the concept of possessions, envy, and subsequently violence to their society. The people decided it was an evil thing and their leader took it to the end of the earth (a massive cliff) and threw it off.

  4. sounds like a defense contract by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    he could get $2 billion for this project from the pentagon if he words the application right and he donates $10K to his senator's reelection fund

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:sounds like a defense contract by Rob_Ogilvie · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think his Canadian senator has much pull with the Pentagon.

      Maybe after Canada becomes the 52nd State (right after Mexico and before Northern California - AKA Lincoln) he could give it a shot.

      --
      Rob
    2. Re:sounds like a defense contract by CaligarisDesk · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hear the pentagon is using it to shoot down their malfunctioning spy satellite.

  5. Just needs... by lobiusmoop · · Score: 5, Funny

    a Coke-and-Mentos second-stage booster and he should be set.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  6. I don't know how he expects to reach space by Melbourne+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's not using any mentos at all.

  7. Hey, 200 Meters ain't bad for a pop bottle rocket! by aarku · · Score: 4, Informative

    Only 79.8 km (out of 80...) left to go, if you take the lowest recognized definition of outer space.

  8. Extrapolating the data points... by giminy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Schellenberg's two-stage model is easily capable of reaching altitudes of well over 200 metres.

    Several years ago, one of his "toy" rockets - actually a Kevlar-reinforced, experimental, single-stage missile pressurized with compressed nitrogen and packing high-tech instruments - flew to just under 379 metres.

    Based on that research, Schellenberg is now convinced that it will be possible to put a bottle rocket into orbit.


    Wow, 379 meters. With just a few more improvements, he could eek out the other 159,621 meters to Low Earth Orbit with no problem!

    Reid

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    1. Re:Extrapolating the data points... by RobinH · · Score: 3, Informative

      To actually achieve orbit, not only does it need to reach this altitude, but also move horizontally at probably over 20,000 miles per hours once it gets there.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Extrapolating the data points... by RobinH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe that the X-Prize only required the craft to reach 100 km, which is kind of the accepted division line between space and not-space. It has something to do with the physics of spaceflight factoring more into the equations than the physics of aerodynamics above that altitude.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Extrapolating the data points... by Detritus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Kármán line. I was just reading about it last week. The air is so thin at 100 km than an airplane would have to travel at a speed greater than orbital velocity in order to generate sufficient lift, and if it's traveling that fast, it doesn't need lift.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Extrapolating the data points... by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      To actually achieve orbit, not only does it need to reach this altitude, but also move horizontally at probably over 20,000 miles per hours once it gets there. The plan is to loft the rocket into the orbital plane of an intersecting object and perform what is colloquially known as the "bugsplat-windshield assist."
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:Extrapolating the data points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Kármán line. I was just reading about it last week. The air is so thin at 100 km than an airplane would have to travel at a speed greater than orbital velocity in order to generate sufficient lift, and if it's traveling that fast, it doesn't need lift.

      fixed link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line

  9. ah silly canadians by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    blissfully unawares that they are just unincorporated us territory

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:ah silly canadians by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

      *obligatory "We're Bigger And We're On Top, Bitch" post*

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    2. Re:ah silly canadians by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 2, Funny

      Big words from America's Hat...

    3. Re:ah silly canadians by bjorniac · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the US has Bush and Dick?

  10. I can hear Nasa now by Frigga's+Ring · · Score: 5, Funny

    We don't dump our satellites in your recycling bin, please don't shoot your pop bottles into our space.

    1. Re:I can hear Nasa now by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      We don't dump our satellites in your recycling bin, please don't shoot your pop bottles into our space.

      Nah, putting them in the recyling bin would be far too orderly, NASA has the military shoot them down with missiles and lets God sort out where the pieces end up.

      Maybe we should combine our desires and use pop bottles to take out your failing satellites. Of course then the military doesn't get to use their toys... so that won't work.

    2. Re:I can hear Nasa now by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think it through. First of all, when the satellite blows up in near-vacuum, most of the hydrazine will never get a chance to diffuse into the atmosphere at all; it will boil off into space. Next, as the fragments of satellite come down, they'll burn up themselves, so any hydrazine they're carrying with them will be exposed to just as much heat as it would if the satellite re-entered intact. (More, quite possibly, since there will be a higher ratio of surface area to volume.) Finally, hydrazine is such viciously reactive stuff that any quantities that survive the explosion and re-entry will happily combine with whatever is in the immediate environment -- the by-products may be toxic, I don't really know, but in any case the pollution will be much less severe than if the satellite came down in one piece.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:I can hear Nasa now by wattrlz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Considering that things like nitrogen and oxygen molecules have trouble staying together at that height what makes you think a cloud of hydrazine, which is highly reactive and thermally decomposes at o K, would survive long enough to precipate out over, "several hundred square miles"? Would ~454kg (1,000 lbs.) of hydrazine even be toxic spread over an area of that size?

  11. Quote from the man. by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I got side tracked off what I should have been doing, which is electrical engineering," said the red-headed, 49-year-old father of five. Yeah, you're letting down slashdotters everywhere by making children.
    1. Re:Quote from the man. by mikiN · · Score: 4, Funny

      Many Slashdotters don't often $ make children, they fork() parent processes.

      Perhaps managing IPC and dealing with zombies comes more naturally to them than dealing with tantrums and changing diapers.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  12. Ony the facts could stop this intrepid adventurer! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you dropped a pop bottle onto Earth from a great height, say a million miles, it would splat (air resistance excluded) at about 25,000 MPH. Seven miles per second. Analogously, if you wanted to reverse the course of the pop bottle, you'd have to launch it from the Earth's surface at a similar speed. Now IIRC at about Mach 1.5, aluminum begins to soften. I suspect the plastic in a pop bottle melts at a somewhat lower temperature. So even if you could get enough dry ice or Mentos to launch the bottle at seven miles per second, it would probably melt in about two seconds. Not to mention that air resistance would slow it down considerably on its upward journey, so it's unlikely to have enough speed for the long run.

  13. Or dry ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so I'm stretching it a bit, but this is my one chance to post this without being off topic. I'd link to the youtube version, but apparently, this is unsuitable viewing material for minors :-/ Youtube is soooo corporate these days.

  14. MythBusters . . . by arizwebfoot · · Score: 5, Funny

    He needs to get with the mythbusters team, tie five bottles together and see if they can life Jamie off the ground.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:MythBusters . . . by STrinity · · Score: 3, Informative

      He needs to get with the mythbusters team, tie five bottles together and see if they can life Jamie off the ground.


      Impossible. It took about sixty to lift Kari.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  15. I don't know... by biased_estimator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO once you start reinforcing it with kevlar it ceases to be a pop bottle. At least I've never drank soda out of such a thing before...

  16. Re:Ony the facts could stop this intrepid adventur by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (air resistance excluded)

          You're cheating. In real life air resistance will not do you the favor of excluding itself on the way down. I have no fear of being hit on the head by a falling empty plastic soda bottle from ANY height.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  17. His company motto says it all by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Funny

    AntiGravity's motto is: "Ongoing research projects of little or no gravity."
    (Straight from TFA...)
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  18. Re:Hey, 200 Meters ain't bad for a pop bottle rock by srussia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Only 79.8 km (out of 80...) left to go, if you take the lowest recognized definition of outer space. Heck, I've done 200m with a butane canister with the bottom cut out (the seamless top withstands the pressure wave). I punch a hole on top, jam a firecracker inside (mainly just around 10g powdered aluminum--otherwise known as a "five-star") with the fuse sticking out the top and launch it from a pan filled with water. This was at age 10. The best aspects of this technique were virtually silent detonation (just water splashing out of the pan) and extremely homogeneous thrust (the thing went straight up, eventually landing just a few meters beyond launch point).
    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  19. Re:said "wandering wombat"? by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you learn to capitalize, you should learn to read the usernames of ALL posters. I know you replied to me... I am entirely unaffiliated with Australia. However, I will take your example, and assume that, based on your username, you are a two-dimensional shape, and thus unable to type. Color me impressed.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  20. Re:Ony the facts could stop this intrepid adventur by MeBot · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're calculating the speed it would need to start at if all thrust were exerted at ground level and it had to coast up to space (again excluding air resistance). If on the other hand you apply thrust throughout the flight, space can be achieved without ever approaching 25,000 MPH. For instance, Space Ship One never flew 25,000 MPH yet it made it to space.

    Also note that I don't believe he'll make it either, and I've always considered 80km to not really be space flight. Just pointing out that the facts you mentioned won't necessarily be the ones that stop the adventure.

  21. Re:Ony the facts could stop this intrepid adventur by gnick · · Score: 2, Informative

    you'd have to launch it from the Earth's surface at a similar speed Not quite. That would be true if you were trying to throw or shoot the object into space, but not if was propelled along the way. I could leave the earth's surface at 10 km/hr and reach space assuming that I could somehow use thrust to maintain constant velocity.
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  22. Re:Ony the facts could stop this intrepid adventur by smussman · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you dropped a pop bottle onto Earth from a great height, say a million miles, it would splat (air resistance excluded) at about 25,000 MPH. Seven miles per second. Analogously, if you wanted to reverse the course of the pop bottle, you'd have to launch it from the Earth's surface at a similar speed. Not quite true. Because the bottle continues to propel itself throughout its path, it will not need to have an initial velocity of 25,000 MPH.
  23. Re:said "wandering wombat"? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Canada was never a penal colony?

          Québec certainly was, I have criminal ancestors to prove it! (My great great(n times) grandfather was deported to the colonies in 1624 for petty theft). But then is Québec really Canada at all? That's a whole other argument right there, "tabarnac" ;)

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  24. Re:Ony the facts could stop this intrepid adventur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no magic speed which must be obtained to get into space. The oft-cited 25,000 mph escape velocity is simply that vertical speed which, if obtained at ground level (and completely discounting atmospheric drag), will allow an object to coast (constantly decelerating at 1G) out of the gravity well of Earth - not simply to the altitudes commonly used for low-earth orbits. Any vertical speed whatsoever, if maintained long enough will get an object into space - and eventually out of the Earth's gravity well. A space elevator would not require massive initial velocities or acceleration - just a lot of climbing up the cable.

    Entering orbit is another matter as the object will need to be traveling horizontally (relative to the surface of the Earth) at a speed in the 17,000 mph range

  25. Re:said "wandering wombat"? by Scaba · · Score: 3, Funny

    For a Canadian, you sure are uptight. I didn't think it needed explaining, but it seems the OP was also trying to be funny by assuming you were, in fact, a wombat.

  26. http://antigravityresearch.com/ by fyoder · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://antigravityresearch.com/

    The guy's web site. I did a google search on "Mr Widget" bottle rocket and the results were all from news sites to do with this story. Searching on antigravity research was better.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
  27. Re:Hey, 200 Meters ain't bad for a pop bottle rock by cthulu_mt · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was this close to a snarky comment about you not killing yourself doing that stupid shit.

    Then I remembered doing the same sort of shit. Good times...good times.

    --
    Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  28. 4th of July Fun-ness by Joseph+Hayes · · Score: 2, Interesting
    My brother-in-law and I decided to make some of these last year on the 4th. For just a couple bucks we built a launchpad and spent the building and launching rockets in the back yard, it was damn fun and we plan on doing it again. Things did get a little dodgy as far as safety was concerned when I decided to put a tinfoil and Drain-o "warhead" on the tip of mine. Timing was a little off, freaked the dogs out bigtime...

    If you spent any amount of time making and modding paper airplanes when you were a kid, this is exactly that kind of fun.

    --
    "The irony when tending a flock of sheep is the dogs you put in place to protect them are genetically mutated wolves"
  29. Don't discount him yet by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Funny

    He stretches the bottles. This is a very important point that you have missed. So far he has only stretched them slightly but if he stretches them to be 100km long then he's made it.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  30. Mythbusters tried this... by gillbates · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In one of their recent episodes, Mythbusters researched using compressed air and water "bottle rockets". The highest flight to date of a compressed air and water rocket was about 500 meters, IIRC. And it was made from materials far stronger than a 2 liter bottle.

    The fundamental problem, as Mythbusters showed, is that a 2 liter bottle just can't hold enough pressure for the impulse necessary to put the bottle into orbit.

    Nice dream, though.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Mythbusters tried this... by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In one of their recent episodes, Mythbusters researched using compressed air and water "bottle rockets". The highest flight to date of a compressed air and water rocket was about 500 meters, IIRC. And it was made from materials far stronger than a 2 liter bottle.
      The fundamental problem, as Mythbusters showed, is that a 2 liter bottle just can't hold enough pressure for the impulse necessary to put the bottle into orbit.
      Nice dream, though.

      Just because Adam and Jamie can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.
      As far as the "fuel" limits, is there a rule that says he can't launch it out of a canon before releasing the pressure? Or use multiple stages? I see he sells a two-stage bottle rocket...
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  31. Team up with Japan!!! by jameskojiro · · Score: 3, Funny

    This sounds the perfect rocket motor for the Japanese origami paper airplane.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  32. Pop? Soda? Pop? Coke? by ettlz · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It's 'soda', not 'pop'."

    "It's 'coke', not 'pop'."

    "It's 'pop', not 'soda' or 'coke'."

    Fuck you lot, it's 'fizzy drink' and you know it.

  33. So then, really... by Tarlus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Inventor to Attempt to Launch Pop Bottle Rocket into Space."
    That makes more sense.

    --
    /* No Comment */
    1. Re:So then, really... by B+Nesson · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Inventor jokingly suggests launching a soda bottle into space; Slashdot gets all huffy."

  34. Re:Whats an inventor? by joto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does it matter. Obviously he makes a living by being a salesman and a hay farmer. But the things he sells, are his own inventions, thus making him an inventor. I'm sure he makes some of them himself, which also makes him a craftsman. Creating bottle-rockets isn't exactly what I would call engineering, but if you want to call him an engineer, that's fine too, as he actually is educated as an EE. Anyway, what you should realize is that this guy is creating bottle-rockets and selling them because it's fun, not because he wants to put "inventor" on his CV.

    Also, a "scientist" is someone who is working as a researcher in science. Most scientists have a Ph.D or equivalent academic degree. There's nothing wrong about putting "scientist" on your CV, although I believe most scientists put their actual titles there instead, e.g. professor, postdoctoral researcher, etc... Note that scientists doesn't necessarily need to work at a university, several companies hire scientists to do their research. One easy way to distinguish actual scientists from people who pretend to be scientists is to see if they have been recently published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

  35. Easy! by downhole · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You guys are totally missing the point here. Launching a ordinary grocery-store soda bottle into space is quite simple. All you have to do is take the bottle into orbit on the Space Shuttle, then have an astronaut launch it out of the cargo bay. You can then legitimately say that you have launched your bottle rocket into space. If you get your angles just right, it'll probably even stay in orbit for a good, long time.

    --
    I don't reply to ACs
  36. I would call this guy a success already by serutan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Schellenberg has been making his primary living with AntiGravity for seven years through sales almost entirely on the web"

    Makes his living selling toy rockets on the web. Who can read that without a trace of envy?