Slashdot Mirror


Europe's Biggest Amateur Rocket Completes Test-Firing

Michael Eriksen writes "The Danish amateur rocket group Copenhagen Suborbitals has successfully test fired their rocket (article in Danish). It is a 90,000 kW monster delivering a total of 140,000 N. According to the group, this is by far the biggest amateur rocket ever fired in Europe. The final goal is a manned (!) low-orbital flight."

45 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. 140000 Newton by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..is 14000 kilograms force. So the total mass of your spacecraft at launch will be 7000kg (or less) if you want to accelerate at 1g initially. In practice you would want more that that so 3-4 tonnes is probably the limit for the whole spacecraft.

    1. Re:140000 Newton by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Informative

      No.
      It takes close to 456,521 kilograms force to lift a weight of 7,000 Kg (Stage 1 Rocket).

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:140000 Newton by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. It takes close to 456,521 kilograms force to lift a weight of 7,000 Kg (Stage 1 Rocket).

      Are you talking about mass to orbit? I mean mass just off the ground at launch.

    3. Re:140000 Newton by Big+Smirk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Saturn V was a 'multi-gear' rocket. To lift off the pad, all 5 main rockets fired. As altitude increased, the center rocket turned off to minimize stress on the rocket (stay subsonic???)

      Space shuttle also has multiple speeds. If you remember the Challenger disaster - the last message from ground was "Go with throttle up" Apparently the shuttle was high enough to go full throttle (again) and not worry about aerodynamic stresses.

      One of the issues with the shuttles solid rocket boosters - they are steerable - allowing insertion into a very precise orbit.

      Compare that with the typical home built - solid rocket, that basically goes were you point it...usually...give or take a bit.

      I worked at NASA 10 years ago and can tell you I have never seen or worked with such a hardworking, under paid (compared to the commercial world) bunch of engineers. Buildings built in the 60s, linoleum tile not matching (patched so many times) - to the point that my wife (a teacher) commented that she used to think schools were in bad shape. All the money goes into the projects.

      --
      TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
    4. Re:140000 Newton by Big+Smirk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, I took your response to be the typical "government wasting money by buying $700 hammers" (which is a myth anyway).

      In NASA, with ever tightening budgets, there is no room for a fat-cat middleman to make huge sums of money.

      And yes, I think a good way to spend the stimulus is to invest in NASA. I bet 99% of the money will be spent in the USA paying middle class workers (those that will buy things like new cars). The only question I have is: "Is there something that gives us the same financial return - but gives us better social return?" Like investing in medical equipment research. You get the same middle class income distribution channel - and maybe more relevant benefits to citizens.

      Well for now its military 1st, social programs 2nd, Science/NASA a distant whatever (4th? 5th?)

      --
      TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
    5. Re:140000 Newton by ikeleib · · Score: 2, Informative

      Saturn V was a 'multi-gear' rocket. To lift off the pad, all 5 main rockets fired. As altitude increased, the center rocket turned off to minimize stress on the rocket (stay subsonic???)

      Space shuttle also has multiple speeds. If you remember the Challenger disaster - the last message from ground was "Go with throttle up" Apparently the shuttle was high enough to go full throttle (again) and not worry about aerodynamic stresses.

      Most liquid fueled rockets are throttleable. Both the space shuttle and Saturn V's throttle down to avoid putting "too much stress" on the airframe. What this really means, is that they didn't want to put more weight into airframe structure, and instead reduce throttle to the point where the atmosphere thins enough that one can throttle up without surpassing the design strength of the airframe. By the way, this point is called Max-Q and for the space shuttle, it is at 11km in altitude. For the space shuttle main engines, this means they throttle up to 104% of specification power (due to improvements over the years, the SSME maximum safe throttle is actually 109% of specification).

      One of the issues with the shuttles solid rocket boosters - they are steerable - allowing insertion into a very precise orbit.

      Compare that with the typical home built - solid rocket, that basically goes were you point it...usually...give or take a bit.

      The problem with solid rocket motors for space travel is two fold. The first is that they cannot be throttled or turned off. The second is that they are considerably less efficient pound-for-pound than liquid fueled rockets. The typical measure of rocket efficiency is specific impulse, which is measured in seconds. For example, the solid rocket boosters of the shuttle have a specific impulse of 242 seconds, while the space shuttle main engines produce a specific impulse of 363.

  2. Rocket fuel for thought... by retech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this cute and interesting when done by a group of European amateurs and a global threat when done in North Korea?

    1. Re:Rocket fuel for thought... by mattaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amateur rocket people don't have a stock of chemical, biological and possible a few nuclear weapons, a historical grudge against a southern neighbor and totalitarian government (although their welfare state does have very good coverage).

    2. Re:Rocket fuel for thought... by Xiph · · Score: 4, Insightful

      quit trolling...

      but i'll bite.
      When amateurs do things like this, they do it out of interest, and the development is quite open.
      When North Korea launches, we're reminded that they've tried detonating nuclear weapons.

      The difference is what we hope space is used for.
      these people hope space is used for "cool things", hence this piques our curiosity.

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    3. Re:Rocket fuel for thought... by PalmHair · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, the European amateurs have always been cute and interesting - I have 4 GB worth of them on my hard drive. I have never considered asian porn to be a global threat, I just not a fan.

    4. Re:Rocket fuel for thought... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is this cute and interesting when done by a group of European amateurs and a global threat when done in North Korea?

      Inexplicably, the European amateurs don't have a nuclear warhead development programme.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    5. Re:Rocket fuel for thought... by captainpanic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is this cute and interesting when done by a group of European amateurs and a global threat when done in North Korea?

      Inexplicably, the European amateurs don't have a nuclear warhead development programme.

      That's because European governments already have had nuclear programmes and indeed warheads for the last 50 years.

      We DO have *several* nuclear programmes in Europe... who else made those two nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles that collided in the Atlantic a couple of weeks ago? (Perhaps the Americans did, I'm not sure).

      The reason why this is cute is that the Danish army doesn't need these rockets, since they probably already have decent rockets that can do the job, and if not, then surely the French, English, Italian (etc) allies.

      You can bet that the moment that these rockets become better than anything the army has, the "cuteness" is gone, and it will be classified, forbidden and of interest to the generals.

    6. Re:Rocket fuel for thought... by reallocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you ought to lose some of those illusions.

      When an amateur group, Danish or otherwise, develops a rocket capable of carrying a nuclear warhead across the Pacific, as opposed to carrying a mouse across a pasture, you can believe it will attract all kinds of attention.

      Also, the Danes aren't poised to invade northern Germany, aren't out of touch with reality, don't issue regular threats against their neighbors, don't have a multi-million strong military, don't kidnap their neighbors' citizens, don't starve their citizens, etc., etc.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    7. Re:Rocket fuel for thought... by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Funny

      The warhead is being developed by a different, somewhat more secretive group of amateurs.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  3. Top Gear's Reliant Robin rocket? by PalmHair · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Top Gear's Reliant Rocket was claimed to be the biggest non-commercial amateur rocket in Europe. The Danish rocket must be bigger, though the video shows only an engine test. Can you claim it to be a rocket test when there is only the engine?

    1. Re:Top Gear's Reliant Robin rocket? by mattaw · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well the word "rocket" is both an engine and a vehicle in common English usage scenarios. Hence it could be completely accurate to say that it is the largest rocket (i.e. engine, source of thrust) while it isn't the largest rocket (vehicle, reliant robin).

      M

  4. Ummm by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases and the Danes are not?

    1. Re:Ummm by sfraggle · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases and the Danes are not?

      How can you say that when Denmark exports millions of vehicles every year believed to be used in private armies around the globe? True, they're Lego armies, but that's besides the point.

      --
      were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
  5. I was there by kobotronic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Up-close videos from the test:
    http://www.vimeo.com/3531197

    Pretty cool stuff, the whole team is all smiles. What was tested is a scaled-up design from a smaller hybrid rocket motor. The fact that the burn was even and stable demonstrates that the motor design is sound, and the math checks out. As such the team remains confident that an atmospheric launch of either this specific rocket or its twin can be carried out by mid-summer. Also, work continues on scaling the design further for the HEAT booster with a body diameter of 60 centimeters (3 times the diameter of the HATV rocket tested yesterday). The goal of the HEAT booster program is to develop a safe, economical and environmentally friendly man-rated sub-orbital propulsion technology. On the www.copenhagensuborbitals.com website you can read about their miniature spacecraft that would sit atop HEAT and carry a would-be astronaut on a no doubt exciting suborbital flight.

    1. Re:I was there by andrew.w.moore · · Score: 5, Informative

      No detraction from their achievements but far from perfect:

      Any comments on the nozzle burning through; it can be seen clearly at 1:05-6 http://www.vimeo.com/3531197 flying off "vertically"; look carefully and the nozzle is heating up then "ping" - once the nozzle cone has gone then the burn starts to go turbulent.

      This is also very clear in the high-speed footage of this event from the www.copenhagensuborbitals.com site.

      Also the engine shutdown seems very messy - lots of random bits'n'pieces thrown about (e.g. down through the flame) - looks like the top of the inside of the booster section sucked down through the ignition chamber.

      Well this stuff will be fixed I am sure and congratulations to them.

    2. Re:I was there by kobotronic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thanks for the comments. I see now that the compressed timeline of the high speed video may be a bit confusing: I contracted for this brief summary the parts of the video that was essentially showing a stable, unchanging situation and left only the highlighted incidents. The burn becomes strongly turbulent only as the injector pressure has dropped appreciably, closer to flameout. The shutdown is rather messy, but I don't think that has significant impact on the flight trajectory.

      We'll be releasing a video later this week with a synchronized time and data track.

  6. Exhaust nozzle blows off after a few seconds by slashbart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you look at the hi-speed movie, you can see that their exhaust nozzle ring gets blown off after a few seconds (no timestamp on the video). I love what they're doing, but they're not there yet unfortunately. Bart

  7. And so what... by jopsen · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Offtopic, I just couldn't help but wonder:

    ...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases

    And would you claim that the Americans less militaristic nut cases than the North Koreans?
    (Rhetorical question - you need not answer I've already prejudged you by reading the second amendment).

    1. Re:And so what... by ozphx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pfft, when was the last time America nuked a neighboring nation?

      Oh.. wait :/

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    2. Re:And so what... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Offtopic, I just couldn't help but wonder:

      ...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases

      And would you claim that the Americans less militaristic nut cases than the North Koreans?

      Background: I am not an American. The GP drew a comparison between NK and Denmark.

      The USA is a seriously militaristic country but their leadership consists of reasonably balanced people. The NK leadership consists largely of one person who is almost certainly terminally ill and quite likely unbalanced.

      I occasionally work in S Korea. With this missile test coming up (presumably whenever the NK rocket techs get the thing to fire) I plan to stay safely in Australia. There is something spookily serious about the South Koreans. I think it extends to the north as well. I think there will eventually be another Korean war, though it may be a short one.

    3. Re:And so what... by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pfft, when was the last time America nuked a neighboring nation?

      I just checked the archives for the last 50 years and there is not one occassion of the Americans nuking any opposing force. I could have looked back further but I expect you'd find exactly the same thing.

    4. Re:And so what... by pjabardo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      George W. Bush is a reasonably balanced leader? That's a first! Obama? Let's wait and see...

    5. Re:And so what... by BradHAWK · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bush was a balanced leader. Except on bicycles. And on Segways. And mentally.

    6. Re:And so what... by slackbheep · · Score: 5, Funny

      2009 - 50 = 1959. See what he did there? ^__________^

    7. Re:And so what... by byrskov · · Score: 5, Informative

      While it may not have been on purpose (and probably doesn't really qualify for a proper "nuking"), the United States Airforce have in fact dropped four nukes on Denmark, just 41 years ago.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

      To quote the article: "The conventional high explosive components of four B28FI model hydrogen bombs detonated on impact, spreading radioactive material over a large area in a similar manner to a dirty bomb, although a nuclear explosion was not triggered. The extreme heat generated as 225,000 pounds of unused aviation fuel burned for the next 5 to 6 hours melted the ice sheet, causing some wreckage and munitions to sink to the ocean floor".

      And to make matters even more interesting, only wreckage from three of the four bombs were found.

      700 Danish and American people worked on the cleanup project for 9 months, often without adequate protection. A lot of the locals and cleanup crew have subsequently gone to court over alleged radiation poisoning. Oh, and did I mention that the nukes stored on Greenland was a breach of Denmark's nuclear free zone policy, and were stored there without permission?

      It's all fun and games when you're the big guy.

  8. The same guys who built the Submarine by darkyi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Those are the same guys who built the biggest amateur Submarine before. Bunch of swell fellows. http://www.uc3nautilus.dk/index.htm

  9. Re:Exhaust nozzle blows off after a 2:02 by kobotronic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, no. The nozzle ring sits on for 10+ seconds.
    At 00:34 in the video you can see it fly off, the distinct luminous object leaving the rocket, which ignites at 00:19. I'm no booster specialist (I work video and telemetry), but my understanding is that the booster team is satisfied that at the time of nozzle failure the expansion effect (produced or supported by the nozzle) is no longer required. In any case a thicker nozzle wall has already been drafted for the next test.

    The high speed (1200fps) footage closeup (side view) is edited timewise; the whole thing takes about an hour to play back at 30fps. We'll be releasing a video with time codes and more data later this week.

  10. Thanks for the explanation by slashbart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great that it's not an important failure for you guys. I'm really impressed with it. I didn't know there was such a professional amateur rocketry club in Europe. Way to go Danes :-)

  11. Lets hope it doesn't go wrong (bad taste warning) by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

    The final goal is a manned (!) low-orbital flight.

    The result could be some crispy Danish bacon.

  12. As I have a Danish surname and live in UK by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can assure you that the Danes do have a record of invading their Southern near neighbours, and I believe the governments of the time were pretty totalitarian. If the Danes had that rocket capability in the 10th century AD, nobody would have heard of King Alfred. And we'd be making the Lego for them.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:As I have a Danish surname and live in UK by smallfries · · Score: 4, Funny

      So we'd have lost out on some burnt cakes, but gained some good bacon, and a huge improvement in centuries of beer tradition... count me in. Let me be the first to welcome our parallel reality Danish overlords...

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    2. Re:As I have a Danish surname and live in UK by digitig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You think Danish beer is an improvement over English? You must be American.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:As I have a Danish surname and live in UK by qmaqdk · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a Dane I must say that the best beer comes from Belgium and Germany. Although the Irish have some good stuff as well.

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    4. Re:As I have a Danish surname and live in UK by digitig · · Score: 3, Informative

      Germany (and Czech Republic) for lager. Belgium for krieks and lambics. Ireland for stout. England for bitter. America for soda water with alcohol and beer flavoring [1]. Denmark for?

      [1] And yes, I know America has some great microbreweries. The problem is with the prefix "micro".

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  13. Hint Re:Rocket fuel for thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To think for oneself does not mean to be contrarian for the sake of it, that would be stupid.

    It does not mean ignoring countrywide living conditions similar to those in a Nazi Germany concentration camp for the inhabitants who behave and a Nazi Germany extinction camp for those who don't, that would be stupid.

    It does not mean excusing a government simply because one can draw parallels and similarities to other governments, that would be stupid.

    It does not mean that it is in any way acceptable to gamble with the lives of tens if not hundred of millions for the sake of moral relativism without any practical gain but bloodshed and/or worse.

    It does not mean continuing to ignore the information available through kidnapped then freed South Koreans and Japanese as well as escaped North Koreans. Nor to ignore the material including covert recordings made by civilians amply illustrating what happens IN PUBLIC in North Korea (and to a lesser extent what happens to some North Koreans in China). Doing any of that would be extremely stupid.

    The only people who shouldn't have problems with North Korea should be die-hard fascists in the political sense of the word, as opposed to using the word as a swearword (and using the word in a non-political sense would be... stupid).

  14. Obligatory daily show link by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's the Matter with Denmark?

    and

    Denmark's Military Arrogance.

    Apparently we can add legalized pot to the catalog of horrors you mention.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  15. 10th Century Danish Rockets by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can assure you that the Danes do have a record of invading their Southern near neighbours, and I believe the governments of the time were pretty totalitarian. If the Danes had that rocket capability in the 10th century AD, nobody would have heard of King Alfred. And we'd be making the Lego for them.

    Who's King Alfred?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:10th Century Danish Rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Who's King Alfred?"

      He invented Lego in the 10th century as a means to prototyping rocket engines.

      Hazard a guess.

  16. Re:Interference Patterns by kobotronic · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/rocket3.htm

    Rocket folk call them diamond patterns. This article gives a good explanation.

  17. Re:Care to qualify that ? by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Beyond rhetoric, what clear military action was done in the last 10 years by North Korea in which they destroyed any foreign military facility (or even civilian one) or even shoot down a rocket carrying a satellite ? I am sorry but I usually ignore both rhetoric (US/EU/North korea), Rhetoric is good for politic, but just at that, beyond that you have to look at the action.

    You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for comments that so undermine one of the greatest violations of human rights the world has ever seen. "You have to look at the action", is that what you pretend to judge by? Then tell me what you really think about a country that uses a brutal secret police and propaganda campaign to enforce the indoctrination of the Great Leader as a Deity on it's population from birth until death? A country were those questioning that basic 'truth' end up executed or in concentration camps? Where even those that honestly believe in the Great Leader end up in forced labor camps, mal nourished and honestly believing they are LUCKY to be where they are protected from the evil Americans by Kim Jong Il, the God?

    Honestly, North Korea is home to a people so horribly repressed and so indoctrinated they really do believe they live in one of the best places on the planet. It sickens me to see anyone outside that world snidely talking about how much more evil America is.