Slashdot Mirror
Tycho Deep Space: a DIY, Open Source, Manned Spacecraft
misterbarnacles writes "Can space travel be democratized? Kristian von Bengtson and Copenhagen Suborbitals think so, and they're building a DIY manned suborbital spacecraft to prove it. 'Bengtson describes the craft as "a half sized Apollo-shaped space capsule with a diameter of 2 meters capable of serving one (or two) persons." When complete, Bengtson hopes the suborbital craft will convey a human passenger higher than 62 miles above sea level, allowing him the rare opportunity to escape Earth’s bonds and view the heavens from the ionosphere.'"
I can just see it...
Spaceship successfully launched!
OK, guys, who wants to work on the reentry system now?
Does this mean that after he's built it, everyone else gets to vote for who flies in it?
They have a video of a test flight with a crash dummy in it. It is both awe inspiring and terrifying as the test dumy was pretty much shaken to death before having it's head caved in on landing.
I'm all for crazy ideas, and I'm a huge fan of space flight (just ask any of my friends, I drive them up the wall with it), but this has to be the worst idea I've ever seen.
Sig: I stole this sig.
I do not think that word means what you want it to mean.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yes, it is really freaking hard, and yes it is really freaking expensive, and yes it's really freaking dangerous and probably downright defiant in the face of reason, logic and safety.... ....but IMHO, if we are ever going to colonize space, we need every attempt possible!
We need to get to the point where anybody can get to space, and STAY out there, and survive in unbelievable, unbearable conditions, with unbelievable challenges, to explore the unknown and dedicate their lives to space exploration OFF of this planet, in addition to everything else we already do.
If we want the universe to be our sandbox, we must evolve into a space-faring and space-surviving species.
Imagine where we would be if a lot of people hadn't pushed the limits beyond everything we could imagine, and yes.... even died trying to accomplish manned flight.
I'm curious. What exactly is 'closed source' about building a car, or an electric car? All you require to build one is tools, materials, skill and knowledge.
This is a DIY project that I would love to see more of. I just hope that in my lifetime I would be able to witness amateur space flights that are "built in the back yard" so to speak. Its a throw back to early oceanic exploration. There will be accidents and possible loss of life but hopefully that will be quite rare.
I just hope they are good with vacuum leak detection. They should have a helium mass-spectrometer leak detector, pressurize the craft with a mixture of helium and some other inert gas and sniff for leaks. Once you work with vacuum, you quickly learn that sealing a closed system to atmosphere can be a tricky business. And that is even more apparent when the vessel undergoes thermal expansion and contraction which loosens otherwise tight seals. Lots of good tig welding is needed along with electron beam or laser welding for more intricate parts.
Imagine the opportunity for engineers and students if amateur space exploration ever gets off the ground (pun intended!). I cant wait for the day when garage hot rodding turns skyward.
First, the guidance systems required are horribly complicated and need to be extremely reliable with almost no testing (each test is a launch and you get very few launches a year). That means you have to have competent engineers. As the Cobol-vs-Java discussion shows, competent engineers are something of a premium and always have been. The number who could actually put together a fully-functional fail-safe guidance system almost blind - no matter how much knowledge is out there - is extremely small. You also have to bear in mind that "reliable" doesn't just mean "it'll work perfectly under Earth gravity" - it has to work perfectly after being smashed with 3-4g forces along the vertical plus massive amounts of vibration from the rocket motors and side winds.
Second, the materials aren't cheap. I forget exactly how much it costs NASA to put something into orbit - isn't it something like $1000 per gram? - and that's with all the expertise on-site, the launch facilities and communications centers already existing and production-line facilities for the parts.
Third, the level of heath required is staggering. The forces involved are simply too great. Russia, hardly the epitome of transport safety, has refused wannabe millionaire space tourists on health grounds, where the issues would have been insignificant in any other line of work.
IP isn't even remotely a factor in all of this. Until titanium is as cheap as aluminium (which it could be if they ever developed a decent refining process for it), until programmers and hardware engineers are capable of making near-flawless products first time, every time, space travel will remain expensive.
This is why, despite Bloddhound SSC publishing the complete specifications, not a single hacker is going to build and race one. They could - the information is out there - but they haven't the skills. And a car is trivial compared to a spaceship.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Check out their first attempt, the Tycho Brahe-1 . I wonder where they sourced the Imipolex G needed to construct the S-GerÃt .
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
First, the guidance systems required are horribly complicated
No doubt they are complicated, but they are still governed by physics. Control theory, digital signal processing, etc are all out here in the wild on the web.
Second, the materials aren't cheap.
No they aren't cheap. But ordering some ammonium perchlorate over the phone, takes Xh hours and Xm materials dollars. Developing the complete IP required to facilitate space travel, accounting for all the physics, requires Yh hours and Ym material dollars. Xh+Xm+Yh+Ym is more expensive, every time, barring negative values (which could be obtained via resale of IP), than just Xh+Xm.
Third, the level of heath required is staggering.
The monkey that builds it, gets the monkey that flys and the monkey doctor to sign a waiver. Problem solved.
Bloddhound SSC publishing the complete specifications
For their particular single instance of a space flight vehicle and plan. I was speaking to "space flight in general" and all the mathematical equations that govern its limits. Just as circuit boards and IC's used to be designed by people using an arduous manual process, todays circuits are designed by EDA tools that "govern the limits" of any type of circuit, and drastically reduce the design cost in terms of man hours. The same sort of framework *could* exist for space flight, at some point in the future. It was an extrapolation of past advances in technology with an eye on the future, not a statement on the difficulty in todays environment.
Look at how many orbital launch failures SpaceX experienced. The failures are not due to incorrect science but rather inadequate application of engineering.
As I understand it, SpaceX have built a new rocket engine and two new launchers and a capsule and flown them into space for about the same as NASA spent to put a dummy upper stage on a shuttle SRB and fire it into the ocean.