Slashdot Mirror
Non-Profit Space Rocket Launching In a Week
Plammox writes "A non-profit suborbital space endeavor lead by Kristian von Bengtson and Peter Madsen is trying to put a man in space. The first test of the boosters and space craft in combination with the sea launch platform will take place this week. The catch? All of this is a non-profit project based on voluntary labor and sponsors. How will they get the launch platform out in the middle of the Baltic sea to perform the test? With the founder's home-built submarine pushing it, of course."
Check out the spacecraft: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/spacecraft.php
Sven the crash test dummy is in for a wild ride!
The pace at which they've managed to do this work is phenomenal.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The project leader, Peter Madsen, reportedly commutes to work every morning in his miniture submarine.
Home built sub? Hopefully not home built boosters, home built life-support...where would you draw the line! Personally, I draw it at home built McDonalds. It's never quite the same.
To much anime is bad for the brain...desu.
Sorry. Couldn't help it.
Nonprofit space exploration? Is there any other kind?
Didn't you listen to Yeager? Its always SPAM in a can.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I suggest we launch a campaign to ask the design to become open sourced so we can do battle over the license and split it among many spacefaring distributions, thus have our own version of Star Wars
I caught this story on Fark, and they linked to a really good thread over on the Something Awful forums with posts directly from these people.
We've made the world's amateur largest space rocket
If you don't want to read all 17 pages, just skim through looking for posts by user frumpykvetchbot.
This is completely awesome, and I wish them the best of luck with the test launch this weekend. :D
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
But not much less dangerous
Orbital is much more dangerous. Re-entry at hypersonic speeds is not an easy problem to solve.
And a couple of magnitude harder than what any non-profit ever did.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
After they successfully completed the task of getting a man in space, they'll start planning the next step: Figuring out how to return him back to earth. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
But not much less dangerous
Orbital is much more dangerous. Re-entry at hypersonic speeds is not an easy problem to solve.
I don't agree. Rocks do it all the time but admittedly pull a lot of gees. Build a carbon fibre sphere, coat it with an ablative heat shield. Tell the occupants to slide around inside so the heat is shared across the surface. Build a couple of doors with explosive devices which can open them even if the heat shield has melted them closed. Punch out at five km altitude and land with conventional parachutes.
If you want to get complex build a double cone: shallow cone with head shield on the bottom. Steep cone on the top. You need a reaction control system to point the blunt side forwards during aerobraking.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Just noted this:
If they want to put a man into space, how can they avoid biological payloads?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
There seems to be a good reason why astronauts sit in a different position than the vertical one!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Many NASA missions were "non-profit".
Considering they are launching it from a sea launch platform they built, which will be towed to sea with the submarine they built, I'd say this is several orders of magnitude more awesome than what anybody else ever did.
Let's see, how many orders of magnitude harder things have you ever done? Links, please.
this is freaking awesome.
make it open source !!!!!!
Even if you find the right mix of materials for the heat shield, you'll still need to get the angle just right. Too steep, and the g-forces will kill you, the shield will get extremely hot, and it will be subjected to huge pressures. Too shallow, and the heat shield will be subjected to heat for much longer, so it has time to conduct through.
Jumping out with a regular parachute on your back requires an accurate landing. It's not so much fun in the middle of the Atlantic with nobody near your location.
Damn, that riding position reminds me of being stuck in an MRI machine. Between the that cramped arms at your side position to the openness of the canopy around your head its going to take someone with extreme mental fortitude to take the ride.
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/spacecraft.php
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Sure but the bit about hypersonic flight is relatively easy if you are going to follow a ballistic trajectory in a capsule. No where near as hard as in something with wings.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Why? Entry vehicles have been invented many times for many purposes. A vehicle was built to enter Jupiter at 50 km/s. As early as the 1950s simple entry vehicles were used to return film from spy satellites.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I was talking about entry vehicles with a live astronaut whom you don't want to turn into toast or jelly.
Micheal Smith as in brother M... Smith and sister M...... Smith?
Small internet if so.
Not sure what reference that is.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Then consider this: The excitement of this single project will probably make many more kids in Denmark want to enter science than any previous marketing driven campaign for recruiting engineering students. It shows the awesome feeling of putting theory into practice and how far you can get if you have one determined team of talented folks.
a suborbital rocket is basically a glorified carnival ride
"Please do not open the safety belt, keep your hands inside the cart and remember to take and hold a big breath before getting out of atmosphere. Oh, and cover your face on the way down, so it won't melt."
More pics from saturday here: http://ing.dk/artikel/111189-se-den-danske-rumraket-blive-soesat
They have been running a blog since the beginning on ing.dk (in danish only, unfortunately). Openness is key to the project, that's how they attract the donations that make up all funding.
The astronaut sitting upright is a key part of the design. The spaceship is 60cm in diameter. If he lies down the spaceship needs to be much wider, around 2 metres, and then require a much larger booster rocket.
They aim at a constant acceleration of 4G, which is not very much for a rocket, but this is to make it liveable in the upright position.
Another key part of the design is that it is a hybrid rocket, which has high power, is controllable, and is almost without dangers compared to traditional liquid and solid fuel rockets.
The fuel is actually some rubber substance (not entirely unlike tyre rubber), with liquid oxygen being pumped through to make it burn at high temps. Totally harmless substances, except when you ignite them, produces great thrust, and is even variable, so they can just turn it off if something goes wrong.
Until now they have only been doing static booster tests (all successful). The upcoming launch is the very first flight test. They only aim at going to some 20 km's altitude. The eventual goal is to replace Sven the test dummy with Peter Madsen, and thrust him to above 100 km's - and get him down safely.
I'm proud to be a donor, and this is one of the best expenditures I've ever done.
Once I knew about them one year ago (through Slashdot, by the way) I told my wife: "If I stop being a rocket modelling fan forever, will you let me give them the money I planned to spend on rocket models for the rest of my life? It could be the way to be part of a really big thing".
And she said: "Ok, but I don't want to know if he dies or not".
I think it's a fair deal, so I gave them a huge amount of money and I won't tell her about the final result.
What about a jelly doughnaught?
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Okay, now I'm jealous. I used to think I was DIY for building my own satellite (Project Calliope), but... man, I'm using someone else's rocket instead of building my own. I feel so old fashioned. The Copenhagen group are totally awesome!
A.
Just pointing out the word choice of push. It's a frikken submarine and a rocket platform. Also, 3 chip's challenge
Not to rain on the parade... So, what are the military applications for this missile, I mean rocket, design? Is there any information here we would not want some smaller, more radical, country to possess? Could the passenger space hold a big canister of some chemical or biological agent you would rather not meet up with? - Paranoid in Michigan
How does busting your brain off in Physics for years to take a McJob feel?"
:) Hmmm... Is this your own experience projected? If someone is busting their brains off in Physics, then maybe this field isn't for them? Science and engineering certainly isn't fun for everyone. This is about spurring excitement in kids about building things with their own hands and come up with practical solutions to the problems they encounter. Secondly, I think you're taking things too literally here, this is not just about making kids enter space engineering (even though there are a fair number of jobs in Denmark for ESA subcontractors and the like). There are plenty of other machines to build that go FOOOOOOOM.
Why do spacecraft have to enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds? Can't we use thrusters to slide on in like an old school vet? I've always wondered that..... particularly with a craft with wings.? Match the rotational velocity of the earth or something..
Say you burn all your fuel to get into orbit. Thats a velocity change of about 8 km/s. To get down under power you would need to change your speed by 8 km/s again, but all the fuel you need for that would have to be carried up in the first place.
A good launch vehicle has a mass ratio of 1/10, meaning that roughly 90% of the launch mass is going to be fuel. If your fuel mass for landing is the same as the the fuel mass just to get the empty vehicle into orbit, the total mass of the vehicle at launch will increase by a factor of 10.
Its just impractical. To land on any large planet you need to use aerobraking.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I was talking about entry vehicles with a live astronaut whom you don't want to turn into toast or jelly.
Yes, because extremely heat and light sensitive film was always turned into jelly before it could be handed off to analysts. Likely the only different considerations are life support and g-forces.
Those Deolaters among you might want to entreat on the behalf of Fraa Jad. Seems to me the greatest danger here is whoever rides atop this may have trouble with space junk being drawn into orbit around his/her giant balls.
where did they source imoplex-g in 2010 ? I mean, have you read the MSDS for that stuff?!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
FYI, it is. They've even released the blueprints for this thing under an open source license (I don't know which one... the site is down at the moment) and are also planning on sharing any data they've received from the flights including performance data under similar licenses.
Be careful for what you ask... as you might just get it.
Take those plans and get your own team together to build another one!
Copenhagen Suborbitals Facebook page
Open Space Movement Facebook page
For anyone wondering, there's another little project in the works, designed to help support existing organizations such as Copenhagen Suborbitals, as well as individuals interested in manned space exploitation. Aka, the Open Space Movement.
The gist of this project is something akin to "sourceforge.net" for aerospace engineering, although that would be a gross oversimplification. The OSM operates on the principle that public involvement is the key to large-scale manned spaceflight in the near future, and operates as a service and organizational platform to help rally public interest, and direct their efforts towards a series of public space ventures.
The site is nearing completion, and should be ready for a beta test in the next week or two. When we begin operations, the first thing we have planned is providing a grant towards Copenhagen Suborbitals. We have raised ~1500 out of 5000$ so far. Having talked with Kristian von Bengstrom, this amount is roughly equivalent to the cost of the propellants used in the HEAT-1X motor. More importantly, providing a 5000$ grant now makes it possible to provide a 50,000$ grant in the future - since the primary incentive behind our donation model is to show exactly what we've spent money on, and what advances have come out of it.
(we intend to spend money on in-house user-submitted projects as well, but a grant is easier to perform at this stage)
OSM and Copenhagen Suborbitals thread here
FUN FACTS:
FY2010 NASA budget: 18 billion dollars
2005-adjusted cost of Apollo Program: 170 billion dollars.
Gross sales of cell phones in 2008: 38 billion dollars
sales of cell phones in a recent 6 month period: 65 billion dollars
We are currently spending more money on cell phones in one year, than the Apollo program spent in a decade.
Very rough estimate of Copenhagen Suborbitals' operating costs over past 2 years: 200,000$ to 300,000$
Sales of ringtones in the US market for 2008: 750,000,000$
Sales of "5 dollar footlongs" in Subway franchises in 2008: 3,200,000,000$
The public has more disposable income than the budgets of all space agencies and for-profit corporations combined. The OSM wants to put that to work.
After all, we already bought the Internet.
Whenever I go into an air and space museum it indeed makes me very happy to pause and reflect how angry some people get that NASA research is government funded. If you don't like your tax money going to space exploration, apply the free market principles you love so well and move to somalia.
So, what are the military applications for this missile, I mean rocket, design?
The builders themselves describe it as "less high tech then an off the shelf scud". AFAIK, there is not really any navigation in it, apart from small thrusters which allow the pilot to spin the rocket around its own axis for panoramic viewing. And their civilian GPS is subsonic only, so they have to wait for the chutes to deploy before they even know where the fuck the thing went. They built the launching platform for less money than what it would cost to rent a decent pram for a week. This project is the very definition of awesome. It is what can inspire a young generation. Give them the geek card Platina, and I'll kiss the ground they walk on.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Someday you're going to realize we don't live in a just world where your dreams come true if you just wait long enough. Faced with that knowledge, you'll actually have to start making decisions and living with the consequences. I hope one of the decisions you make will be to go outside more and learn about the world.
For anyone in the DC/VA/MD area, I will be giving a talk on the OSM and Copenhagen Suborbitals as well, at the SpaceUP DC conference on the 27th and 28th of August.
Looks like a manned missile; reminds me of the cyber missiles in Gunnm / Battle Angel Alita.
Wow, what a great point.
See also: http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Oh, you mean those hand built, non-factory line, non-mass produced, non-"scale of economy" Mazeratis aren't junk cars?
Is it really possible that people can actually have a quality built product like those old Louis XIV furniture pieces or custom built Mazeratis that aren't mass-produced scale of economy products? You know once upon a time, quality didn't depend on an assembly line. Assembly lines are good for producing large quantities of products, but they they don't have any lock on quality. Just mass production and speed. Proper QA requires nothing more than mindful, careful, knowledgeable inspectors, and most important workers who know how to build things that work right and are committed to making it happen. Certainly, there are technological tools available to us today to make precision parts, and make them consistently. But non of that requires scaling. Hell, Intel started out as home-made.
Scale of economy just only gives you more points of failure, and more parts that can be discarded and still produce a working product. I've worked QC/QA. QC/QA is only effective if your builders give $#!@ about what they are building, or the builders who built the robots do, or the people watching the robots do, Things fail when they are not properly engineered, assembled, and tested. Not because some magical quality of "scale of economy".
Right, on October 1st, 1958, NACA ceased to exist and NASA began. NASA began by absorbing all of NACA's facilities, property, and people. So what happened, was 8000 people got a new badge, and a new name on their paychecks. The NACA dates back to Orville Wright.
Currently the sub, launch platform, rocket and all is well underway from Copenhagen to Bornholm. Info here (in Danish) http://ing.dk/artikel/111481-fra-koebenhavn-til-nexoe-opdateringer
Danish rocket launch postponed till Sunday. Live coverage and comment will be at http://bit.ly/a8yZss - also follow #raket and @ingdk at twitter