Slashdot Mirror


Qu8k Rockets Above the Balloons

darkjohnson writes "Lately we've been inundated with 100k' balloon flights and amazing video footage from space — the flights usually taking better than an hour to achieve apogee. Derek Deville took a shortcut to 121k' using a 'home made' Q rocket motor and a ton of engineering genius. On September 30, 2011 at 11:08am, Qu8k (pronounced 'Quake') launched from the Black Rock Desert in Nevada to an altitude of 121,000' in 92 seconds before returning safely to earth.This small documentary on the flight is probably one of the most brilliant Amateur Rocket videos out there right now." The launch was an attempt to claim the Carmack Prize. (And Deville evidently likes to launch another kind of rocket, too.)

153 comments

  1. Impressive by JavaBear · · Score: 3

    That is pretty much all I can say :)

    1. Re:Impressive by cfc-12 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but it's not exactly rocket science. Oh wait...

    2. Re:Impressive by Grog6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed!

      This is nice. I wonder what it cost to do...

      Seeing the epoxy cover over the camera melt off was interesting too; good thing it came off evenly. :)

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    3. Re:Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is nice. I wonder what it cost to do...

      I happened to be hanging out last night with one of the camera men who filmed this launch from the ground. Needless to say it is very surprising to see this on Slashdot, it's like having my private life show up here, very weird. Anyway, the answer to your question is "I'm not gonna say" but it was more than $10 thousand.

      If you've seen the rocket launch from '08 where Team Numb fired a keg of beer to about 6000 feet, that was a good launch too. I have weird friends.

    4. Re:Impressive by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I haven't watched the full video yet. Did it melt from the temperature of the rocket, or from friction with the air? It was apparent that the camera lens had already melted when it got near its apogee.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:Impressive by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      It's suborbital ballistic engineering, silly.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    6. Re:Impressive by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      I have weird friends.

      I'd say you have great friends.

      North of $10K sounds about right. Awesome but expensive.

    7. Re:Impressive by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Needless to say it is very surprising to see this on Slashdot

      Why? It's a clever-but-pointless project by some well off geeky US kids who are helping to undermine the evil government monopoly of space flight. Plus it's named after a classic compyter game. Couldn't be much more slashdot unless they got Linus Torvalds to launch it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Impressive by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Friction, the video indicated that the temperature got to 840deg (F?) at Mach 3.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:Impressive by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Thank you. I didn't hear it in the video. More likely, I forgot everything from before the launch. :)

          It does lead to my belief that we shouldn't try to build up so much speed at a low altitude. Save the fuel until they're higher, with less air resistance. Of course, that's a bit more difficult with solid fuels.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  2. I'm going to launch my rocket into uranus by Trubadidudei · · Score: 0

    I was convinced that I was about to read about Devilles career as a pornstar when I clicked on that last link.

  3. Homeland Security's gonna love this... by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Geez, I hope the poor guy doesn't get kidnapped by the Iranians! (Or the Palestinians).

    I wonder if he'll be allowed to leave the country (I know someone who works for the NSA who needs to give the State Dept. 3 months prior notice before leaving the U.S. Not sure if this includes Canada). Ok, maybe this rocket isn't state of the art rocketry. And not sure how guided it was. Still 112,000 ft.!

    So, is this basically the design of a "Katushka?". Or even earlier the rockets launched by the Soviets in the launchers called "Stalin's Organ"?

    Has he tried staging? Is it legal for a private American citizen to put something in orbit? (I guess I'm just kidding, while 112k is a good height, orbit requires a very high horizontal velocity of 5 miles a sec.)

    What about launching FROM a balloon? (Although it might be more fun to launch AT a balloon).

    Ok, these comments are kinda non-sensical, I just woke up from a nap.

    1. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by notmyusualnickname · · Score: 1
      Nonsensical?

      Possibly.

    2. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While pretty impressive from a home hobbyist point of view (I'm showing this to my wife, I'm nowhere near this bad) - it doesn't break any ground in terms of rocketry. He isn't a state secret, needn't walk around icognito. If you watch the videos of the Libyan war, you see similar devices shot more or less horizontally. As you allude to, staging is much harder. Payloads are harder.

      The bungie cord though, is fantastic. So are the little GoPro cameras. One other interesting pointlet is that most of the PCBs seem to be COTS prototyping boards. He's managed to leverage a large amount of over the counter tech for this thing.

      Even if he's not doing anything horridly complex (by world standards, at least) it's pretty damned cool.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by EdZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One other interesting pointlet is that most of the PCBs seem to be COTS prototyping boards.

      And importantly, almost entirely SMT boards. You may think that through-hole components are more robust, but SMT can survive much greater G-loads for the twin reasons of being generally much lower mass, and having a big flat plane of attachment rather than long legs with unattached sections free to bend and fatigue.This has important implications for gun-type space launches: very heavy and very, very expensive monolithic resin electronics blocks are unnecessary, properly mounted SMT boards are sufficient.

    4. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      I haven't seen through the hole PCBs on commercial stuff for ages. Unless it's really high power stuff or the company is still using boards from a decade a go. Even for hobbyists, SMT (Surface Mount Technology) is pretty easy. Once you get a nice magnifying glass and some fine tweezers.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      it doesn't break any ground in terms of rocketry

      It would have been a lot more impressive if the videos had been shot with a handheld camera.

      I know we're supposed to be all gung ho for private space exploration, but I'm just not catching the fever yet.

      Wake me when one of the "private" space outfits finally puts a human being in space.

      Still, as a lifelong model rocketeer, I give this Qu8k guy lots of props for reaching over 100k'.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Once you get a nice magnifying glass and some fine tweezers.

      And a nice iron. The smaller the tip, the smaller the thermal mass. "big" thru-hole can get away with free running a dumb power resistor across the AC mains. Tiny tips either overheat and self destruct, or have to be retinned every 5 minutes, or get cold and can't heat the pad instantly. Don't need digital display, although its nice, but do need active electronic control of the tip.

      It took me decades to get around to buying some rather elaborate Hakko gear, and after about an hour of use I wondered why the heck I waited. There are others out there that are probably just as good.

      Also there exists a telecom wire tracing tool that is basically a plastic stick with a L shaped 18 gauge or so stainless steel (solder won't stick) wire sticking out of the end of it. That comes in handy... so you stick the IC or the cap or whatever on the PCB with a touch of solder, then you nudge the device into perfect position with this thing, then let it cool into place before soldering all the other pins.

      I prefer SMD over thru-hole. Its frankly easier and faster.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Teancum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wake me when one of the "private" space outfits finally puts a human being in space

      So you are suggesting that the efforts of Burt Rutan didn't qualify as "putting people into space? You also think that "Space Adventures" is a science fiction magazine?

      While I'll admit it has taken longer for regular sub-orbital flights to happen since the Ansari X-Prize, private citizens have been able to get into space and even orbit. And of those who have been able to into space on their own dime (or that of a private employer), passenger spacecraft have been able to get above the Kármán line.

      I agree, this particular rocket, the Qu8k, isn't especially amazing other than it has done something that few have done before on their own. 100k feet is a remarkable accomplishment, and the fact that these guys did that accomplishment on a rather limited budget is all that more amazing. Assuming they could put this into production, they have a viable sounding rocket if they care.... something which has an established market if they would care to get into that kind of business.

      The interesting thing here is likely how cheap it was to build this rocket, at least compared to other vehicles of this size and performance.

    8. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes they are non-sensicle. 1) You need 6.94 miles per second for 'escape velocity' not 5. :
      F=m*dv/dt=m*dv/ds*ds/dt=m*dv/ds*v,
      thus
      m*v*dv/ds = -mg*R^2/s^2
      and
      v*dv= -g*R^2*s^-2*ds
      and
      integral(v*dv) = -g*R^2 * integral(s^-2*ds)
      so
      (v^2)/2 = (g*R^2)/s + C
      now when v=vo (the velocity of the rocket at launch time, the rocket isn't moving yet, but immediately about to)
      then s=R (the distance from the center of the earth to the rocket is the distance from the center of the earth to the edge of the earth...the rocket is still on the ground), and so
      C=1/2*(vo)^2 = -gR.
      Consequently, v^2=(2*g*R^2)/s + (vo)^2 - 2gR
      finally, since (2*g*R^2)/s gets small with increasing s, we see that v remains positive if and only if vo >= (2*g*R)^.5

      In imperial, the radius (R) of the earth is 3956.088331 miles (approximately).
      In imperial, acceleration due to gravity is 32.17404856 feet per second squared (approximately), and this is
      6.093569802 x10^-3 miles per second squared.
      Thus, escape velocity is greater than (or equal to) (2*g*R)^.5 = (2 * 6.093569802 x10^-3 * 3956.088331) ^ .5
      which is 6.943587025 miles per second. So there! You *DID* just wake up from a nap, didn't you!

    9. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by spasm · · Score: 1

      Rocket launched from a balloon? Done for decades:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockoon

    10. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, vacuum tube circuits are sufficient. In WWII proximity fuzes were mounted in artillery shells. Nothing new here, move along. But I'll betcha some Space Nutters are gonna come barging in here wondering how long it would take to colonize the Galaxy in 100,000 ft increments.

    11. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Geez, I hope the poor guy doesn't get kidnapped by the Iranians! (Or the Palestinians).

      These days id be more worried about my own government coming to collect him. Then squelching his works, and tracking down everyone that has ever looked at it.

      Even if you could accomplish it, I really doubt you can put something into orbit, as you will then breach other countries 'airspace' and create a 'space h hazard'. Of course once its up, all they can do is shoot it back down.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    12. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      I thought SMD needed solder baths, robotic chip placers, and all that. Is it possible to do by hand?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    13. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Has there been a private flight into orbit? I.e., not using national-level spacecraft?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    14. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      Take a look in your microwave or (high tech) toaster. Through-hole is still cheaper for simple things, and finds a lot of use in cheap consumer products.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    15. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're such a gullible and naive little Space Nutter. Keep fucking that chicken, "private space" will never happen beyond party favors for bored billionaires.

      You're adorable, I'd like to pinch your cheeks!

    16. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Nirvelli · · Score: 1

      It's possible to do SMD by hand, but it's also possible to cut your lawn with a pair of scissors.
      If you are going to be doing much surface mount work, it's probably in your best interest to at the very least get a hot air reflow station.

    17. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      private citizens have been able to get into space and even orbit

      When has there been a private project which put a human into orbit? Did I miss a week's worth of headlines?

      You'll have to excuse me. The "private" development of space is a special hobby-horse of mine. Considering how poorly "private industry" has behaved here on Earth lately, I'm not all that jacked about the prospect of them conquering space. I'm trying to think about some portion of the planet that hasn't been fouled in the name of the shareholder value of a very small portion of the population, and I'm not really coming up with anything. I was on the Louisiana Gulf Coast last month and the fishing and wildlife still haven't recovered. Tar marks the tide in areas where you used to be sure to see egrets. And that's just one small examples. It's not that private industry is necessarily bad, it's just that they are never necessarily careful.

      As someone who enjoys amateur astronomy, and as the son and grandson and father of other amateur astronomers (and hopefully grandfather someday), I'm not all that anxious to see "private industry" do to the solar system what they've done to Gary, Indiana, Benton Harbor, Michigan or Calumet City, Illinois.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by subreality · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The initial learning curve is harder, and you'll want a good soldering iron, but once you've cleared those hurdles hand soldering SMD is a piece of cake.

      Reflow soldering is completely hobbyist-accessible too: I use a syringe of solder paste to put little dots on all the pads, tweezers to place all the components, and then I lay it in a bare aluminum (NO TEFLON!) frying pan. Throw it on the stove for five minutes and pluck the board out with a pair of needle nose pliers (the pan cools too slowly) after all the solder melts.

      The surface tension of the melted solder pulls all the components into alignment, so you don't have to place them perfectly. A few pins usually get messed up since I'm not as precise with the syringe as I would be with a stencil, but I just inspect with a cheap loupe and clean up any mistakes manually. Other people use toaster ovens with much success, but I've found the frying pan works great for single-sided boards.

      Honestly I find it's much less tedious than through-hole soldering, and I love having access to all the cool SMD ICs that you just can't get in DIP packages. The only problem is that prototyping is a bitch. If you want to breadboard a SMD IC you have to make a SMD to DIP adapter board first. But I usually don't bother: I just design my board, get one made, manually kludge around any mistakes by lifting pins and soldering in fine wires until I get it working (usually only one or two wires per board), and then get a final one made.

    19. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've hand-soldered even the smallest pitch surface mount packages, and the only limiting factor is the soldering iron. As long as the leads are exposed, they can be hand soldered. However "QFN" (quad-flatpack-no-leads), "DFN" (dual-flatpack-no-leads), and "BGA" (ball-grid-array) packages cannot be hand soldered, because the leads are underneath the package - between the ceramic and the PCB. It's impossible to put the soldering iron on the leads.

    20. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I see you still haven't gotten an account. Join ussss.

    21. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      While pretty impressive from a home hobbyist point of view (I'm showing this to my wife, I'm nowhere near this bad) - it doesn't break any ground in terms of rocketry. He isn't a state secret, needn't walk around icognito. If you watch the videos of the Libyan war, you see similar devices shot more or less horizontally. As you allude to, staging is much harder. Payloads are harder.

      That was my reaction as well. It's a sounding rocket. A very impressive, totally DIY sounding rocket, but still a sounding rocket. You can find footage from sixty years ago of people doing exactly the same thing out in the desert.

      (Not trying to put down their achievement, just pointing out that provided they don't fire it into controlled airspace, no-one's going to bat an eyelid).

    22. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      awesome, thanks!

      people who can really crunch through numbers amaze me.

      Do you have a newsletter?

    23. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Wake me when one of the "private" space outfits finally puts a human being in space.

      This seems like a fairly arbitrary success criteria. Why not a lemur? Or one of those big ass tortoises from the Galapagos Is.?

      I'm pretty sure I saw footage of humans being launched into space before - it's been done before, so doing it again would hardly be groundbreaking either.

    24. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not only possible, it's very common in small & medium volume electronics especially high-end stuff. My boss takes pride in using a 6mm tipped Weller iron (not 0.6mm) to solder 0603 stuff down.

    25. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I saw footage of humans being launched into space before - it's been done before, so doing it again would hardly be groundbreaking either.

      Sending a vehicle into orbit has been done before too, but as soon as SpaceX did it, it was huge news. It was hardly groundbreaking since there is footage of NASA doing it FIFTY YEARS AGO.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by tibit · · Score: 1

      I do down to 0402, without any optics other than what comes with my own eyes. I don't know how much longer I'll be able to pull it off, though.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    27. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      awesome, thanks!

      people who can really crunch through numbers amaze me.

      Do you have a newsletter?

      That has become rather less useful as a skill since the introduction of electronic computing devices a few decades back,

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      Who makes all the equipment that you use for your hobby? Who made the computer you are using right now? Also, are governments not fouling the earth as well? What planet are you living on? Fully half of the Superfund sites in my state are Federal government created sites, mostly Military. And we as the taxpayers didn't get any benefit from it, unless you consider deadly weapons a useful product.

    29. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by bolthole · · Score: 1

      Wake me when one of the "private" space outfits finally puts a human being in space.

      As the soviets showed with Laika in 1954: putting someone UP there, is easy. It's the "getting down safely" part that's difficult.

    30. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Leadless packages most definitely can be soldered by hand (see the third photo from the bottom at http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~ptdeboer/ham/sdr/) but it's not much fun. You make the connections using short bits of very thin solid wire, using the heat from the iron to solder both ends at once.

    31. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      unless you consider deadly weapons a useful product.

      A surprising number of Americans consider deadly weapons not only to be a "useful product" but one guaranteed by
      a tortured reading of the US constitution.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Teancum · · Score: 2

      A private manned spacecraft into orbit? Not yet. SpaceX and Blue Origin sure are trying, as is XCor. Yes, I'll admit that Dennis Tito went into orbit riding a Soyuz spacecraft.... sold to him because Russia allowed capitalism to enter their country and permit this to happen, unlike in America. It still was a privately-financed orbital flight with people as the crew.

      BTW, the Dragon spacecraft, which was originally developed with private funds and even with the COTS money still isn't a "national-level spacecraft" by any definition of the term certainly could have sent an astronaut to orbit and safely brought them back. The trick is to get the costs down so it can be done for a somewhat reasonable price.

      Some of this is definitions here, but private orbital spaceflight is currently possible. You do need to currently train to become an astronaut/cosmonaut which takes at least six months of intense study and a physical exam that not everybody with that kind of money can pass, but assuming you are in good physical shape and have the money to place on taking a trip into orbit, it can be done. Space Adventures is willing to take your money and allow you to contact previous customers who are quite satisfied with the quality of service from that company. A list of previous customers is available upon request and also found on Wikipedia if you aren't sure of the accuracy.

    33. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      private citizens have been able to get into space and even orbit

      When has there been a private project which put a human into orbit? Did I miss a week's worth of headlines?

      Yup, I think you did.

      See: http://www.spaceadventures.com/

      For future "private" spaceflights, see also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-musk-and-spacex-are-launching-a-new-era-of-private-spaceflight

    34. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Yup, sure. Humans will wipe out all the endangered species on the Earth's moon, and Venus, and Mercury, and Mars, and the asteroids... Corporations will make all those places unfit for human life.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    35. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      He didn't say escape velocity, he said orbital speed. In low earth orbit, 1 trip around the earth is approximately 90 minutes, or roughly 4-1/2 miles/second.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    36. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by quetzalblue · · Score: 1

      > You do need to currently train to become an astronaut/cosmonaut which takes at least six months of intense study and a physical exam that not everybody with that kind of money can pass

      So are you saying that the US and USSR's budgets were mostly spent in the old days in training chimps and dogs to pass those grueling exams ?

      Sorry, but I just cant see what "intense study" you're going to need on a 9 minute flight. In case of emergency (you'll know when that will happen) just scream - for all the good it'll do you.

    37. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yup, I think you did.

      See: http://www.spaceadventures.com/

      I think that "spaceadventures.com" just leased a spot on a government space ship.

      That's not quite the same thing as "private industry sending a human into orbit". The spacecraft was not privately built or flown or funded.

      That's like me buying you a ticket on Amtrak and telling people I run a railroad.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yup, sure. Humans will wipe out all the endangered species on the Earth's moon, and Venus, and Mercury, and Mars, and the asteroids... Corporations will make all those places unfit for human life.

      See, those places are already unfit for human life. I assumed you would know that. But that doesn't mean corporations can't make a huge mess there.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The analogy doesn't quite fit, although comparing Space Adventures to an airline might. Certainly they don't build the rockets, but Space Adventures does deal with the "leasing" of the rocket complex and paying for the launch itself.

      Airbus also is mostly "government owned" in terms of being a manufacturer, but I don't think companies like jetBlue who uses their airplanes can be considered a "government agency". A company like Space Adventures is mostly the same.

      BTW, the spacecraft used for the Space Adventure flights were privately built (by RKK Energia), and privately financed by Space Adventures. No, it isn't like buying a ticket on Amtrak, unless you are contracting a whole train from Amtrack for a private run outside of their normal schedules. RKK Energia and Roscomos were making a profit off of those private flights, even if the need to "swap" Soyuz capsules on the ISS gave extra motivation for those flights. Certainly Dennis Tito didn't go up to the ISS out of the generosity of the Russian government as a goodwill gesture to western businessmen.

      These "private" astronauts most certainly did pay their way on those trips. The fact that such "private astronauts" are willing to pay such amounts is proof that a market exists and is being exploited if you can build other vehicles to carry those same astronauts.

    40. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Sadly, you know little about what it takes to go up on a Soyuz spacecraft. Those who go up in that spacecraft have to be able to take over any position on that spacecraft and be able to fly it not just to orbit but also through re-entry and landing. They have to know all of the emergency procedures and become qualified in every way like any other cosmonaut.

      Don't get my started on the chimps and dogs. Those capsules are certainly not "crewed spaceflight" rated and it only shows even more your sheer ignorance as to what a professional astronaut even does. I dare you to say such a statement straight in the face of somebody like Buzz Aldrin. If you can live to see the next day. If you did that in Texas, they might even call that justifiable manslaughter.

    41. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      That is the only time I've ever seen anyone do anything from under a BGA package. That's the 4th row of a 416 ball BGA device with 1mm pitch. The package was 0.5 mm from the PCB! The balls are in a row instead of offset, so the wire didn't have to zig zag in between rows, but the balls are that much closer in that configuration!

      If anyone here can honestly do that kind of rework, my hats off to you!

      I could do the 0402 without magnification before my laser surgery. I was horribly nearsighted, around a 8 inch max focal length with my naked eyes, but it was like having a built in microscope! I wouldn't trade it back through for the other 99.9 % of the time that I enjoy my 20/10 vision (not to mention being out of the fumes!)

    42. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Sending a vehicle into orbit has been done before too, but as soon as SpaceX did it, it was huge news.

      Was it? I had to google it to recall when that was (it was 10 months ago)

      It was hardly groundbreaking since there is footage of NASA doing it FIFTY YEARS AGO.

      And footage of the Soviet Union doing before then. Which emphasises the point - the criteria needed to 'impress' random slashdotter x seems entirely arbitrary and unrelated to any real milestone. Specifically, the criteria that hoisting a human into orbit is a milestone any startup is required to acheive is quite ridiculous in the post human era of space exploration.

    43. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Please excuse what may be an ignorant question. I've never done any SMD work, but I've done plenty of through-hole soldering, which I learned from my dad when I was just a kid. I remember he used to put heat sinks on all of his semiconductors before soldering so the heat from the iron wouldn't damage the devices. Have you ever (literally) fried a chip or other semiconductor by using a frying pan to bulk solder all of the components on your SMD boards? How much of a margin is there between melting the solder and melting your components?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    44. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the human race.

      We tend to be short-sighted, greedy, and in many other ways, stupid. That's inherent in our DNA, unfortunately. If you haven't noticed, governments haven't been doing a particularly good job of cleaning up after themselves in space, either. So we basically have a choice: lobby to do a better job in space than we've done so far on earth, or lock up the heavens and stay here on our own polluted little planet.

      I understand -- and even share -- fouling up space as well as the earth, but I really don't think that preventing private exploration of space is the answer. It's going to happen sooner or later; let's just push to make the companies that are moving in that direction as responsible as possible.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    45. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Which emphasises the point - the criteria needed to 'impress' random slashdotter x seems entirely arbitrary and unrelated to any real milestone.

      Well said. IMHO, not that this is any less arbitrary or random or related to any real milestone, this guy launching a ~$10K rocket to well over 100,000 feet (30,400m, for my metric friends) is indeed impressive. I've been following a guy (solidskateboards, IIRC) on YouTube who routinely launches a sorbitol/KNO3 rocket to around 5,000 feet, which I thought was plenty cool enough...but 100k feet...wow.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    46. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      ...just pointing out that provided they don't fire it into controlled airspace, no-one's going to bat an eyelid...

      Ummm...he did fire it into controlled airspace. In most of the contiguous United States, any airspace over 1200 feet above ground level (AGL) is "Class E" airspace. Okay, I don't know exactly where he launched from, so he could have been in one of the exceptions where the floor of Class E airspace is "as published", but even then, anything above 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and below 60,000 MSL is "Class A" airspace (see the 14 CFR 91 and the Aeronautical Information Manual for more information on and Class E airspace). I would assume he notified FAA before launch, and received permission to penetrate at least the Class A airspace; I'm not sure if any notification would be required to penetrate Class E, since (for aircraft at least) there is typically no regulatory requirement to contact air traffic control before entering the airspace.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    47. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I really don't think that preventing private exploration of space is the answer. It's going to happen sooner or later

      I don't think private exploration of space is ever going to happen without massive help of the government.

      Corporations have just become too short-sighted to pull of anything like this. It may have been possible like over a century ago when private corporations had long view (like the ones that built railroads) but today, if you can't show a bump in stock price THIS QUARTER, the CEOs and boards of directors just don't care.

      There simply is no way for a space exploration company to show a profit the first or second quarter it is in business. It just doesn't work that way. So for now, only eccentric billionaires are in the game. That's all fine, but as a group they tend not to be stable enough to create the necessary infrastructure.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    48. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed. Firstly, good for him giving it a go and following his passion. Secondly, that footage is spectacular - I have that same camera, or at least one very much like it, which I use for trail riding. And here it is, videoing the black of space, with the curvature of the earth below. It never hurts to be reminded that space is very big, and the earth very small.

    49. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by subreality · · Score: 1

      I haven't had one fry yet! I'm probably going well outside the envelope specified on the data sheets, but those are pretty conservative, and the components can actually tolerate quite a bit more.

      The biggest problem I have is somewhat uneven heating. One corner of the board reflows first and it usually takes 30-60 seconds between the first melt and the last one, and there's usually some wisps of smoke coming off the board by the time I'm done. The fix I've found is to turn off the heat when I know it's getting close, let the whole thing heat soak for a minute, then finish it... kind of a crude approximation of what's recommended on the data sheets.

      I've done a couple dozen boards this way, and they've all worked, even when they were smoking and a little browned on the hottest corners! The failure rate would probably be terrible by production standards, but for my use it's surprisingly easy and effective.

    50. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Cool -- thanks for the info! I may have to give a surface-mount project a try.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    51. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by subreality · · Score: 1

      One more tip - use lead-based solder. All modern components are rated for reflow with lead-free which melts at a much higher temperature. I think a major reason my cheesy technique works so well is the lead-based solder gives me a lot of extra safety margin.

      Let me know how it goes if you try it!

    52. Re:Homeland Security's gonna love this... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      He knows he will get modded to oblivion if he got an account, as the "Space Nutters" comments are completely inaccurate and flaimbait.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. did he win the prize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    well...did he?
    I read about the prize after the video and now I know why he put 4 GPS in there...

    1. Re:did he win the prize? by jstults · · Score: 1

      They didn't get a lock with any of their receivers at apogee.

  5. Gr8t by mmullings · · Score: 1

    F'n awesome....coolest thing I've seen in a while.

    --
    I remember when MOD was an audio format, and DOS wasn't a network attack....
  6. Outstanding! by dbc · · Score: 2

    That's manly.

    Every aspect of that rocket was impressive, the construction, the flight profile, the telemetry, and especially the recovery. Total success.

    Having lost more Estes rockets than I can remember in corn fields and cow pastures 40+ years ago, all I could think of all the way up was: "How the fsck is he ever going to find that thing again?" When they drove up to a totally intact rocket in the middle of the desert, whooping all the way, I could totally identify. That was a jaw dropping moment for me.

    Well done, sirs.

    1. Re:Outstanding! by mmontour · · Score: 2

      "How the fsck is he ever going to find that thing again?"

      It helps if the rocket has a GPS receiver and is broadcasting its position over APRS. At 08:23 you can see a short clip of them receiving a position report on what looks like a Kenwood TH-D7A handheld transceiver.

    2. Re:Outstanding! by dbc · · Score: 2

      That's the easy part. When you consider the altitude he reached, bringing down in the same state is a challenge. Telemetry is the easy part of rocketry.

    3. Re:Outstanding! by jstults · · Score: 1

      "one of the requirements is GPS data over 100k. Even with four separate GPS systems, we were not able to get a high altitude fix." With no tangible record of the rocket's soaring ascent, it's unlikely that Deville and his friends will score the cash. Amateur Qu8k Rocket...

      One of the significant hurdles for Carmack's prize is the ITAR speed/altitude restrictions on most GPS receivers. It will be interesting to see what sort of receiver they used; hopefully at least one of the four was an unrestricted receiver.

    4. Re:Outstanding! by bolthole · · Score: 1

      http://blog.crashspace.org/2011/03/the-carmack-prize/ claims,

      "you dont need an unrestricted GPS"

    5. Re:Outstanding! by jstults · · Score: 1

      The annotated ITAR indicates (121.1 Category XV (c)(2), pp50 in that pdf) that there is a speed and altitude restriction: "Designed for producing navigation results above 60,000 feet altitude and at 1,000 knots velocity or greater".

      Hopefully they will get credit because their receivers worked at low-speed and low-altitude (on the way down), and they've already integrated their accelerometer data to get very reasonable velocity and position estimates.

  7. Qu8K= Quake? what about Kuwait-K ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Qu8K is pronounced "Quake"? surely "Kuwait-K" or "Kw-eight-K" ? My immediate reaction was that it was a bunch of guys out in Kuwait doing this... ... well, whatever you want to call it sir, you built it, and fair play to you for getting such an altitude. Congratulations, here's to amateur enthusiasts!

  8. in new money: 36880 metres by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Congratulations, here's to amateur rocketeers and other hackers doing interesting things.

    For those of you in countries using metric measurement systems for space engineering, that's 36,880 metres approximately.

    1. Re:in new money: 36880 metres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's do this right, mkay? Don't use thousand-delimiters. One man's decimal marker is another man's digit group marker. I can probably use a slingshot to shoot something 36,880m straight up, because that's not even 37m. 36880m on the other hand...

    2. Re:in new money: 36880 metres by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's 183 furlongs, ok?

    3. Re:in new money: 36880 metres by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Let's do this right, mkay? Don't use thousand-delimiters. One man's decimal marker is another man's digit group marker. I can probably use a slingshot to shoot something 36,880m straight up, because that's not even 37m. 36880m on the other hand...

      Do use 1000's delimiters, it makes numbers much easier to use. Just usr the neutral ones, i.e. a space (preferably non breaking (*)).

      121 000 feet is 37 000 metres.

      Or save breath and say 37 Km.

      (* of coursemslashdot fucks that up....)

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    4. Re:in new money: 36880 metres by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      Balloons can go quite a bit higher, the current amateur record is just above 40km. But even so, you can't beat a rocket for sheer style :-)

    5. Re:in new money: 36880 metres by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yes,and let's leave our common sense in a little tray by our bed when we get up in the morning, as we're obviously not going to use it to realise something obvious like, for instance, in a story about rockets of course they don't fucking mean it went up 37 metres.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:in new money: 36880 metres by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's 183 furlongs, ok?

      Or 1344 diplodocuses, old style.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Why so few comments??? by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 2

    Everyone is over checking out the pics, videos and documentation. Some of the folks that actually understand flight math won't be back on Slashdot til tomorrow.

  10. Thank you for the (no lame music) by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks d3deville for the kick-ass rocket video. Double thanks for leaving the audio track blissfully free of crappy pop/rock/punk/rave background music that infests so many Youtube airplane/rocket videos.

    Although personally I think if you had added the soundtrack from The Right Stuff movie (orchestral piece from end of the movie during Gordo Cooper's launch), it would've made your excellent video even more awesome, I suspect that people who do not share my tastes in music might have been put off.

    1. Re:Thank you for the (no lame music) by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Not put off because I don't share your taste in music, but I am put off because you took a cheap jab at mine - I like a lot of the 'crappy' pop/rock/punk/rave music. Also happen to like orchestral music as well. And yeah, I get why you might not want a music background. It's cool.

    2. Re:Thank you for the (no lame music) by dotbot · · Score: 2

      The raw in-flight sound really makes this video brilliant. The rocket splutters and then eerie silence.. for a few seconds. Mesmerizing stuff...

  11. SFW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the "other kind of rocket" link SFW?

    1. Re:SFW? by Discopete · · Score: 1

      yeah, it's to fireworks displays.

    2. Re:SFW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... in his pants!

    3. Re:SFW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fireworks in his pants? Is he having a party in there? Are we invited to the pants party?

  12. Sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry but Qu8k is not pronounced "Quake" no matter how hard you try.

  13. Lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been doing this since the end of WWII when Americans put cameras on captured V-2s. Sooo..... It's impressive that our energy sources and materials have stayed the same since 70 years? Hmm, and Space Nutters think we'll colonize the galaxy like this?

    1. Re:Lately? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Governments have been doing it since WW2. Regular people have only been doing it lately, and at a MUCH reduced cost.

  14. What was covering the lens? by mikech2000 · · Score: 1

    Anyone know what was covering the lens?

    1. Re:What was covering the lens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The printed plastic camera shroud melted over the lens during the firing of the last stage. They had intended to go with an aluminum camera shroud but didn't have time to manufacture it, instead they used the printed prototype shroud.

    2. Re:What was covering the lens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 3D-printed part melted. He was going to machine something out of metal but ran out of time.

    3. Re:What was covering the lens? by WhiplashII · · Score: 5, Informative

      The part holding the cameras was made from plastic, because he didn't have enough time to machine it. It melted when the rocket hit mach 3+, because of the compression shock wave that formed in front of it. (Commonly misreported in the media as "air friction")

      Essentially, the plastic thing poked out of the rocket. The mach 3+ air had to be brought to a dead stop right in front of it. The way it does that is by forming a high pressure shock right in front of it. Basic physics, when you compress air is gets hot - in this case, melting the plastic rocket bits...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  15. Re:US still uses imperial units like the 3rd world by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    When you launch a rocket, you can choose the units of measure. At least it converts clean, unlike the whole MiB vs MB crap.

  16. WOW... by elkto · · Score: 1

    I have not seen footage like this since the Reaction Research Shot! Love the mechanical "noise" in the absence of air. With Frank Kosden gone, I have to wonder, who built the motor for you?

    Again Excellent!

    1. Re:WOW... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mechanical noise was the drogue deployment and apogee separation occurring. 121,000 ft is significant for amateur rocket efforts, but isn't the highest flight - that goes to the CSXT(2004) flight that reached space (65 miles). No amateur efforts have achieved orbit, YET!

  17. Balloon + rocket by mu22le · · Score: 1

    What this guy did is awesome, but for a second while reading the summary I got confused and hoped that someone had mounted a rocket on a balloon to be ignited when the balloon is about to reach its peak altitude. THAT would have been absolutely awesome!

    1. Re:Balloon + rocket by ctid · · Score: 1

      I think that LOHAN on theregister is supposed to do that. Initial announcement

      --
      Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
  18. This is Slashdot by OverkillTASF · · Score: 1

    And this is the best thing I've ever seen on it. I wish I could put this in the Slashdot survey as an example of the kind of stuff I come to Slashdot for. No, it's not breaking new ground, but this guy and his friends did a nerd thing just for the hell of it. And that's what we do. He planned it well, it executed well, and the way it was shared with us was awesome. That said... Why did the Go-Pro shield melt on the way up? Was it the heat conducted through the tube from the burning engines or something?

    1. Re:This is Slashdot by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Why did the Go-Pro shield melt on the way up? Was it the heat conducted through the tube from the burning engines or something?

      Air friction. That thing went nearly 1 km/s in still quite dense air.

      If you look at the details, you can see the shield melted from the outside in.
      It was also meant to be made out of machined metal, but they apparently had
      to go with the 3D printed plastic prototype due to time constraints.

    2. Re:This is Slashdot by OverkillTASF · · Score: 1

      Even more awesome.

    3. Re:This is Slashdot by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      He was going Mach 3+ - the plastic melted from the heat from the mach shock wave. (Typically reported incorrectly in the media as "air friction")

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  19. Guidence by dharma21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The most amazing part for me is that there seems to be no steering mechanism for this rocket. The fact that this was machined so well to withstand those speeds, maintain proper telemetry and not spin out of control/crash to earth, etc. is a testament to the builders. With that type of airflow, any slight imperfection in the fins would have made this a very short or nausea inducing video. Instead we get to view beautiful images of the planet we live in.

  20. "Better than an hour" by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

    Which is "better than an hour", 59 minutes or 61 minutes, and why is it better?

    1. Re:"Better than an hour" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a dick.

    2. Re:"Better than an hour" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends what you're trying to do. Half-marathon: shorter is better. Pig orgasm: longer is better.

    3. Re:"Better than an hour" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better
      ADVERB:
      3. More: It took me better than a year to recover.

    4. Re:"Better than an hour" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Depends what you're trying to do. Half-marathon: shorter is better. Pig orgasm: longer is better.

      I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never run a half-marathon.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  21. A nice little sounding rocket by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sounding rockets in this size have been around for a while. The first one was the Aerobee sounding rocket in 1947. It reached 117500m. One of the smaller Aerobee variants of the 1950s was about this size. There have been many small sounding rockets over the decades; the UK and Australia launched a lot of them.

  22. k'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Kilofeet"? Is that what we're going with?

    C'mon USA, it's the twenty-first freakin' century.

  23. Quatekay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Qu8k (pronounced 'Quake')

    As soon as you need someone to tell you how to pronounce something, it should be a message that they got it wrong!

  24. Once the rockets are up up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who cares where they come down.
    "Thats not my department"
    Says Wernher von Braun

    Tom Lehrer - Wernher von Braun

  25. Re:US still uses imperial units like the 3rd world by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    What countries in the "3rd word" use imperial units?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  26. Not impressive by khallow · · Score: 0

    First, balloons can go up to about 300-400k feet (which are the theoretical limits of buoyant objects in our atmosphere) though I don't know of balloons currently going much past 170k feet. Second, there is no limit to a rocket's altitude. If it hits escape velocity for Earth, it's leaving.

    I don't understand the submitter's (darkjohnson) contempt for balloons, but 120k feet is not that significant for a rocket.

    1. Re:Not impressive by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the submitter's (darkjohnson) contempt for balloons, but 120k feet is not that significant for a rocket.

      Balloons are slow and low-tech, hence the contempt. As rockets go, this was about as simple as it gets. 1940's technology at best, except for the 1970's propellant formulation. However, do not underestimate the difficulty of getting a small solid-propellant rocket to 120,000 feet. The apparatus may be rudimentary, but do not forget that this thing reached almost mach 3, literally faster than most bullets. The plastic camera cowling melted from the adiabatic stagnation temperature of the shockwave that formed over it. The engineering and fabrication techniques required to keep something in one piece under those conditions are pretty challenging. With that said, it would be infinitely cooler if it were liquid propellant.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    2. Re:Not impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you read slashdot for much more interesting stories like this: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/10/09/1826211/iphone-4s-pre-orders-sell-out

      Or perhaps you could link us to the impressive stuff you've done?

    3. Re:Not impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      infinitely cooler with liquid propellant? Was this just a long way to go for a pun?

      I for one have no clue why the type of propellent an amateur uses has any bearing on how impressive the height of his rocket was.

    4. Re:Not impressive by khallow · · Score: 1

      Heh, I work with these guys. And needless to say, we put balloons up to 100k (including paying customers!) and occasionally launch small rockets at those altitudes.

    5. Re:Not impressive by khallow · · Score: 2

      Balloons are slow and low-tech

      Part of my indignation is because I launch high altitude weather balloons for a non-profit. The basic technology for these balloons is similar in age to solid propellant rockets. Sure, balloons are slow, but they have other advantages and disadvantages compared to rockets.

      The engineering and fabrication techniques required to keep something in one piece under those conditions are pretty challenging.

      Having actually made a sounding rocket that was intended to launch under similar conditions (and failed, I might add), I appreciate what you're saying. Balloons don't push the envelop as much, but they do have their own engineering challenges.

    6. Re:Not impressive by khallow · · Score: 1

      And I helped make the shell for a sounding rocket (unfortunately, it failed at launch) for these guys. Normally, I'm as blowhard as the next guy, but this is an area in which I actually have significant experience.

    7. Re:Not impressive by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Solid propellant just works. Liquid propellant requires pumps or regulated gas pressure to drive the propellant to the combustion chamber. Liquid propellant is more difficult, thus more impressive.

      AFAIK the best chemical propellants are liquified gasses: hydrogen with fluorine or O2 or O3. Better propellant is more impressive.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  27. Science. by sidragon.net · · Score: 1

    You can, yourself, verify scientific claims. All it takes is time for the right technologies to become available to you.

  28. love it but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how does one pronounce quake from qu8k? that would be quatek or quatekee wouldn't it?

  29. Re:US still uses imperial units like the 3rd world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What countries in the "3rd word" use imperial units?

    I actually meant to say "US still doesn't use metric system, just like only some 3rd world countries".
    As for reference to that, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication
    It's only US, Burma and Liberia that don't officially use the metric system.

  30. Re:US still uses imperial units like the 3rd world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from what I've heard from people that have spent time in Liberia the metric system is actually in use there.

  31. He Could Be in Big Trouble ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is illegal to send an amateur rocket to an altitude of over 100,000 feet. The US signed an international treaty back in the 1960's that basically dealt with who is responsible if a rocket were to come down on foreign soil and cause damage. In short, anything that goes above 100,000 feet needs to be :

    * Launched from an official US space port
    * Cleared by the United States State Department
    * Insured
    * and a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting.

    I should also point out that if you are a U.S. citizen, you can't simply go and launch your rocket from Palau because according to the treaty U.S. citizen's can't "cause to be launched" rockets that go above 100,000 feet without meeting the above requirements either.

    1. Re:He Could Be in Big Trouble ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that metric gives you higher numbers than imperial (e.g. 50 mph is 80 kph) so these guys could just explain to the Feds that the 100K+ actually was in metres not feet.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:He Could Be in Big Trouble ... by jstults · · Score: 1
    3. Re:He Could Be in Big Trouble ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Amerika owns space?

  32. Hmmm. by EETech1 · · Score: 1

    I got a reworked prototype ECU from Motorola that had 4 really tiny wires coming out from underneath the MPC555 processor. Some of them from the 4th row in on the BGA! There was more stuff rerouted under the chip as well!

    Now I'm a pretty darn good solderer, and not too bad at rework, but I really really wanted to shake the guys (super steady) hand that pulled that one off!

    Cheers

  33. the motor by pngai · · Score: 1

    I'm impressed that he makes his own rocket motors (along with all the other stuff).

  34. Restrictions on Civilian GPS by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 2

    I wonder how they planned to get around the restrictions on civilian GPS. Whilst I'm sure they took this into account (at least I hope both they and John Carmack did) is that civilian GPS receivers are limited to speeds quite a bit below their speed, and altitudes of around half of the achieved altitude:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Restrictions_on_civilian_use

    "The U.S. Government controls the export of some civilian receivers. All GPS receivers capable of functioning above 18 kilometres (11 mi) altitude and 515 metres per second (1,001 kn) are classified as munitions (weapons) for which U.S. State Department export licenses are required."

    3,516 km/h is just over 975 m/sec and they estimate an altitude of more than twice the restricted altitude.

    1. Re:Restrictions on Civilian GPS by timothy · · Score: 1

      I hope you ask this in today's (upcoming) interview with Deville -- interesting point.

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    2. Re:Restrictions on Civilian GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no "export" here was there?

    3. Re:Restrictions on Civilian GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different GPS manufacturers interpret the law differently, some disable when they hit the speed limit, some disable when they hit the altitude, and some disable when they hit either limit that is probably the reason he has 4 GPS devices on it, the rocket can switch brands during the flight to record low altitude high velocity information and then switch to high altitude low velocity gps when that drops out.

    4. Re:Restrictions on Civilian GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Carmack Prize text: "To win, you need a GPS serial log of the flight with at least one report above 100,000’. You don’t need an unrestricted GPS, it is ok to lose data during the high speed portions of the flight."

    5. Re:Restrictions on Civilian GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they export it?

  35. Re:US still uses imperial units like the 3rd world by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    The UK.

  36. Scary shit by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    After having just flown between Las Vegas and Chicago. The idea of a commercial plane running into an "amateur" ballon or rocket and the subsequent catastrophy has me wondering when this "viral" activity will end up going terribly wrong. I guess it will continue untill that point. It has even been in commercials on TV as a wonderful activity that companies are using to sell product.

    But then I am a compputer programmer and we look at these sorts of failures.

    Watch the skys.

    1. Re:Scary shit by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Your fears are misplaced. Firstly I won't get into the "big sky" theory. Secondly, in most cases the FAA and pertinent government agencies are notified.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re:Scary shit by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      I suspect that that is not really the case. At least in the first such case several months ago with the the group that sent a ballon up there was no mention in the press certainly that there was notification. In the Commercial (which may be fiction) the claim was that the fellow bought his weather ballon with point from his checking account I believe. If the practice goes viral I suspect that few of those people jumping on the band wagon will even know that there is a thing like controlled air space over 14k feet or the controlled air spaces around airports. Being in Chicago those spaces are pretty busy. Planes go down from flocks of birds sucked into the engines, sucking in a ballon and electronics I suspect would do some damage. I don't know if planes today have internal radar that could detect objects so small.

      Your argument is about statistics. Won't happen because of the probability. I just worry about the viral stick all the stuff in a shoe box with a balloon crowd wanting to do neat cluesless copy cat stuff with a pretty big down side.

    3. Re:Scary shit by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Well, so far only a few fools have hooked balloons to their lawn chairs for the hell of it.

      The rocket shot was done at Black Rock Desert, where the HPR (Tripoli.org) folks have a big annual get together, and they do get FAA restrictions/clearance to do what they do.

      This won't be replicated by "copycats" any time soon, if only for the time and money involved.

      And, the probability of bird strikes is really a low altitude risk. How often really do planes go down from goose indigestion? Once? Twice?

      Find some other windmills to tilt at.

  37. Re:US still uses imperial units like the 3rd world by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Here in the UK we have achieved an almost perfectly confusing mixture of imperial and metric measurements. Road signs are in miles, stuff in supermarkets is kilograms or litres, and most people over about 40 still use Fahrenheit instead of Celsius.

    It was a miracle we ever switched away from pounds, shillings and pence.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  38. flat earth society by surd1618 · · Score: 2

    Lancaster, CA, where I grew up, was the home base of the Flat Earth Society. When I was a little kid, my grandpa helped me build a couple of Estes rockets and we took them out to the dry lake beds. I would have loved to have taken Charles K Johnson out there and fired off a rocket like this, so he could watch the Earth curve away on the video feed.

  39. This was on a 416 ball BGA! by EETech1 · · Score: 1

    That is the only time I've ever seen anyone do anything from under a BGA package. Plus the 4th row of a 416 ball BGA device with 1mm pitch. The package was 0.5 mm from the PCB! Installed directly to the PCB with the 4 little wires disappearing underneath! The balls are in a row instead of offset, so the wire didn't have to zig zag in between rows, but with 1mm balls of solder 1 mm apart before it dropped down over 0.5mm during soldering, so there cannot be much room for the wires between the balls!

    If anyone here can honestly do that kind of rework, my hats off to you! Please link a picture of your work!

    I could do the 0402 and every other type of leaded SMT package without magnification much easier before my laser surgery. I was horribly nearsighted, around a 6 inch max focal length with my naked eyes, but it was like having a built in microscope! I wouldn't trade it back through for the other 99.9 % of the time that I enjoy my 20/10 vision (not to mention being out of the fumes!)
    I can still solder them all with only safety glasses on, but I like to double check under magnification as I would rather be absolutely sure of my work. I look them all over a couple times anyways before doing any testing so I know what I'm looking at if they ever come back! Some of the 0.5mm stuff have some pretty beefy pins on them, and its hard to be sure they're not touching because sometimes it looks like they are all touching!

    It's fun to teach the co-ops, and the new hires how to do them when they come and ask for help. With the right tools, training, and guidance, its easy to pick up. But the BGA still amazes me!

    Cheers!

  40. ITAR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pity the (ITAR ignorant) fool!

    No really. ITAR is serious business. As in FBI/State Department levels of pain.

  41. Gratifying! by timothy · · Score: 1

    Ask that in today's interview :) (upcoming)

    And I'm glad you liked it -- it's instantly one of my favorites, too.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5