Slashdot Mirror


Amateur Rocketeer Derek Deville's Qu8k Rocket Flies to 120,000+ Feet (Video)

Derek Deville is a rocket hobbyist. A lot of us have messed with Estes Model Rockets, which start at about $13 for a pre-assembled rocket that can go 800 feet straight up. Derek's rockets are on a whole different level. His personal rocket altitude record is closer to 33 miles, which is about 150 times as high as the entry-level Estes rocket -- and takes more than 150 times as much effort to build and launch. Derek's employer, Syntheon LLC, helps him out a lot with tools and materials. Lots of other people help him, too. Derek has been mentioned on Slashdot before. This video is a chance to get to know him a bit better. And anyone who shoots rockets to the top of the Stratosphere for fun is worth knowing, right?

165 comments

  1. Fastest Deville I've ever seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Car analogy not required!

  2. Rockets are fun, but fairly expensive as hobby by luvirini · · Score: 3, Informative

    and his toys are definitely not on the cheaper side.

    1. Re:Rockets are fun, but fairly expensive as hobby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hobby? Hopefully this guy is well appointed and known to DHS..

    2. Re:Rockets are fun, but fairly expensive as hobby by timeOday · · Score: 4, Funny

      He should have put all his money into an unnecessarily large house, like a normal person.

    3. Re:Rockets are fun, but fairly expensive as hobby by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      Disappointing: when I read "Rocketeer" I thought this guy would strap a rocket on his shoulder and fly that high over Hollywood. Bummer! Now that would have been something else

    4. Re:Rockets are fun, but fairly expensive as hobby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least he will get a bailout unlike someone whom launches their money away.

    5. Re:Rockets are fun, but fairly expensive as hobby by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      What's the return on investment on a used rocket?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Rockets are fun, but fairly expensive as hobby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on what you blow up with it.

    7. Re:Rockets are fun, but fairly expensive as hobby by timeOday · · Score: 2
      If living in an expensive home were a good investment, it would be cheaper in the long run to live in an expensive home than a cheaper one. If that were true, the only rational thing to do would be to buy the most expensive house possible. If people did that, housing prices would skyrocket and create an unsustainable bubble. Then prices would unavoidably collapse and people would owe more on their homes than they're worth, thus becoming a horrible investment.

      If living in a really nice home is what you value in life, go ahead and spend your money on it. But if you think you'll be paid to live there, you're most likely wrong.

  3. mannequins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I really want to know is the deal around the body parts strewn all over his shop.

    1. Re:mannequins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lol'ed when he pulled the rockeengine out from behind the prone, naked, bottom half of a manaequin. Me thinks he doth find this a little too exciting...

  4. I had no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that Alton Brown was into rockets too!

  5. Re:Honestly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wah

  6. Re:Honestly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How old are you?

  7. Scan to 2:37 for a shot of his PE resin girlfriend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seriously, I really cannot imagine why this is in a rocket shot next to the other PE resin stuff. My best guess is that he was ordering from a shop and they said, "hey do you want a couple of cast lady parts *with* nipples?" Seriously, why include nipples. I bet there was a reason the lower half was turned around away from the camera.

    Yes, mod this troll/offtopic, but this is a bio of his shop/life, so I thought it was relevant. Msg to fellow nerds, have a girl do a walk through inspection before camera's roll in.

  8. Advanced, High-Power Rockets by dtmos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Derek's rockets are on a whole different level.

    To be sure. Derek's rockets are classified by US Federal Aviation Administration regulations as "Advanced, High-Power Rockets", not Model Rockets. See CFR Part 14, 101.22.

  9. flash by zag2me · · Score: 0

    Please stop using flash for these videos arghhhhh

    1. Re:flash by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sorry, unless you're within Apple's reality distortion field, Flash is the web standard for video players.

      Would you rather they used Microsoft Silverlight?

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    2. Re:flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about linux 64bit distortion field? Sure there is a flash plugin but it's unstable so I don't install it. Most of YouTube and Vimeo are HTML5 so it's not really an issue except with less tech savvy sites.

    3. Re:flash by repetty · · Score: 1

      ...Flash is the web standard for video players.

      Oh, thank heaven -- at least there's a good reason!

    4. Re:flash by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Why is this a troll? Flash is the web standard for video players, in the same way that Windows is the most widely used OS. It doesn't mean you necessarily approve of either

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. Woah! by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Slashdot has its own video player?

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    1. Re:Woah! by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      No, they're 'rethinking video with Ooyala'.

      Which is to say that they're using a video player even worse than JWPlayer in terms of performance and stability (seeking leads to the infinite spinning disc, the video catching up to the buffering leads to a complete halt, and the video plays back with drops and hangs (literally, I couldn't interact with the thing for 20 seconds just now).

      They don't have much choice if they choose Ooyala as the distribution platform of choice for some reason, but then I have to question the distribution platform of choice.

      Audacity, here I come again.

      Also, this cowboy needs to slow down because it has been only 4 minutes since I last posted a reply.

    2. Re:Woah! by butalearner · · Score: 1

      No, they're 'rethinking video with Ooyala'.

      Which is to say that they're using a video player even worse than JWPlayer in terms of performance and stability (seeking leads to the infinite spinning disc, the video catching up to the buffering leads to a complete halt, and the video plays back with drops and hangs (literally, I couldn't interact with the thing for 20 seconds just now).

      You think that's bad; I can't even get to the video. The advertisement plays perfectly, though. I should know, I refreshed three times trying to get past the infinite spinning disc when it's trying to load the video.

    3. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder it doesn't work.

    4. Re:Woah! by gtirloni · · Score: 2

      It takes a while for Flash to crash on Chrome but on Firefox it's a different matter, it crashes right away. What's wrong with putting the video on Youtube or even the (crappier) Vimeo player?

      --
      none
    5. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with an HTML5 video tag. We're all using modern browsers here.

    6. Re:Woah! by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      One of the worst video players I've ever used, it seemed almost as if mouse movement alone was enough to reset it back to reloading the video from scratch. I had to FF that at least 6 times just to watch about half of it because of the constant resets.

    7. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has its own video player?

      OMG! Slashdot can program in flash! WHOAHOAHOAHOAHOAA!!!!

    8. Re:Woah! by cynyr · · Score: 1

      care to tell me which video format supports all of them?

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    9. Re:Woah! by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      The only Audacity I can find is an audio player. Can you elaborate?

    10. Re:Woah! by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Audacity is an audio recording/editing/playing app - I used it to record the audio so that I more easily seek through it for the transcript.
      ( I can additionally use it to slow down playback while keeping pitch so I can more easily keep up with what's being said - I'm not a stenographer - but usually it's not needed. )

    11. Re:Woah! by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Ah, ok. I was hoping for an app that would grab the video and play it reliably. Getting tired of all those sucky FLV players.

    12. Re:Woah! by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      VLC plays back FLVs quite well - the problem is getting the FLV in the first place.. I couldn't be bothered trying to find out how ooyala tries to keep the file from users.

  11. 130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by Barryke · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I have never understood using feet for measuring vertical distances.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
    1. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by trongey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are vertical distances somehow different from horizontal distances, or distances in any other orientation?

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    2. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have never understood using feet for measuring vertical distances.

      Actually it's 39 624 meters

    3. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe it comes from the dark age, probably they were pilling up some corpses and found that counting the feet sticking out of the pile was a great way to measure its height... else i cannot think of a good reason to have a foot vertically oriented.

    4. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about your feet, but mine are usually horizontal.

    5. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      130000 feet is 40 km, not 10km !

    6. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by deroby · · Score: 1

      well, kind of.
      (In theory) I could put one foot right in front of the other and repeat that 130k times, thus walking down the road and getting an approximation of 130k feet. Doing that UPWARDS is just impossible.

      That said, SI rules !

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    7. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by budgenator · · Score: 1

      maybe it comes from the dark age, probably they were pilling up some corpses and found that counting the feet sticking out of the pile was a great way to measure its height... else i cannot think of a good reason to have a foot vertically oriented.

      Hot kinky Sex is the first one I thought of.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by repetty · · Score: 1

      Actually, MacGyver2210 kinda answered a similar topic elsewhere on this web page:

      Sorry, unless you're within Apple's reality distortion field, Flash is the web standard for video players.

      So, you see, it's standard and that alone makes it right.

    9. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by Barryke · · Score: 1

      You are right. Also i should correct myself in that the /. title says 120000 which is 36576m. (and not 130000 feet)
      Sorry.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    10. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I have never understood using feet for measuring vertical distances.

      Hey baby, my house has 0.003048km high ceilings.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by trongey · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your feet, but mine are usually horizontal.

      Sorry to hear that. Maybe a different cologne or something would help.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    12. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      ~3m will suffice. smart pants.

      --
      none
    13. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. They are far more difficult to achieve, and more interesting to experience. You can go on an aircraft to 35-40k feet for around $500. You can go on a Virgin Galactic "spacecraft" to 62 miles (327,000 ft) for around $200,000. You can go on a Russian Soyuz to 180 miles (950,000 ft) and also go round and round till you do a de-orbit rocket burn, perhaps 360-36000 minutes for $30,000,000.

      These prices are vertically challenged.

      Let's not even discuss lunar, Mars or Europa!

      JJ

    14. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I have never understood using feet for measuring vertical distances.

      It sounds more impressive than using furlongs, rods or chains because you get a bigger number.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      maybe it comes from the dark age, probably they were pilling up some corpses and found that counting the feet sticking out of the pile was a great way to measure its height... else i cannot think of a good reason to have a foot vertically oriented.

      So what do you call a point one vertical metre high? That's right...a metre high. I cannot begin to understand why you think vertical measurements require a different unit than horizontal ones.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:130000 feet ~= 10km (metric) by sjames · · Score: 1

      Which do you prefer, rods , cubits, or furlongs? Is it OK to use cubits for the height and feet for the drift?

  12. Endoscopy.. by Walterk · · Score: 5, Funny

    He works for a company making flexible endoscopy devices. Yet he's building a rocket. Should we be worried?

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

      He works for a company making flexible endoscopy devices. Yet he's building a rocket. Should we be worried?

      Need my solution to hostile endoscopes? One word.. beans, the one thing proctologists fear the most.

    2. Re:Endoscopy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He works for a company making flexible endoscopy devices.

      Well, I guess that explains the "crash test dummy" in the background at around 2:37...

    3. Re:Endoscopy.. by inicom · · Score: 1

      BACKGROUND - The founders of Syntheon were formerly involved with a medical-device company named Symbiosis, of which I ran IT. Myself, Kevin Smith, and Ted Slack conducted a large number of rocket tests in the parking lot of Symbiois, which led to the formation of a company named Environmental Aeroscience Corporation (I came up with the name, because our rockets used a safer chemical reaction than solid fuel rockets). We were joined by a well-known amateur rocketeer, Korey Kline (who was well known for, among other things, a gasoline-drip rocket). We were also joined by another founder/engineer from Symbioisis, Tom Bales. EAC developed a high-end amateur rocket line which we called HyperTek. Those rockets are, I believe, still available from a company under license. We also launched a number of rockets at Black Rock, Nevada, as well as at the NASA base at Wallops Island, Virginia. One of our rockets is at the Miami Museum of Science.

      --
      -a.e.mossberg
  13. Re:Honestly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have done effluent studies for rockets of this size and they produce about 70 pounds of water, about a pound or two of HCl, about 12 pounds of aluminum oxide, and about 4 pounds of carbon or so and some other mostly benign stuff per 100 pounds propellant. To put this in perspective they pollute less than a big rig running for one hour and do so in very remote areas where the material disperses to immeasurable levels immediately.

    To the folks that are concerned about stratospheric pollution, these rockets burn out in the air and coast about 2/3 of the altitude or so.

    Pollution from rockets is a straw man argument. There are too few flown worldwide to ever matter.

    JJ

  14. Two questions about rocket design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) How does the rocket know where is up? Is the direction set during first seconds of launch or it's adjusted by gravity?
    2) Launch video shows how little spin the rocket has. Is there something actively stopping it from spinning during flight, fins are tuned in the wind-tunnel or something else?

    1. Re:Two questions about rocket design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) what would happen if he airlifted a platform by weather balloon several miles, and then launched? can a "hobbyist" achieve orbit?

    2. Re:Two questions about rocket design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen a dart? Do you think darts are tested in wind tunnels?

      A flying rocket cannot sense any gravity. It's either accelerated by its own motor (which drowns any gravity-induced acceleration), or in a free fall. A really advanced rocket could use a gyroscope to sense direction, but most of them are basically powered darts.

    3. Re:Two questions about rocket design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have seen a dart, and a dart can/will spin when thrown.

    4. Re:Two questions about rocket design by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Informative

      High power rockets like this are fin stabilized. The initial guidance is provided by the launch rod or rail, which keeps the rocket going straight up until it gains enough velocity that the fins provide sufficient aerodynamic correcting force. Exactly the same as the little Estes model rockets, just bigger.

      The lack of spin is an indication that he got all the fins well aligned with the thrust axis of the rocket. Not surprising since he laid out the attachments using proper tools in a well-equipped machine shop.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    5. Re:Two questions about rocket design by khallow · · Score: 1

      what would happen if he airlifted a platform by weather balloon several miles, and then launched?

      Well, he'd get more height especially with a vacuum-optimized rocket nozzle.

      can a "hobbyist" achieve orbit?

      No, the sixteenth law of motion passed in 1963 says that you have go pro once your rocket gets too impressive. Before that change in the laws of physics, you could though.

    6. Re:Two questions about rocket design by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's designed so that the center of aerodynamic forces is aft of the center of mass, which keep the rocket motor end of the rocket behind the nose end. the Greater the distance aft the center of aerodynamics is to the center of mass, the more inherent stability the vehicle will have. You'll notice that the launcher has rails to keep the rocket straight until it has enough velocity for the aerodynamics forces to stabilize the vehicle. The missile I worked on had a zero-length launcher, that bird left fast!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  15. Am I the only person by CaptainHayashi · · Score: 1

    that thinks his name sounds oddly similar to "daredevil"?

    Maybe he should strap himself to one of his rockets for charity or something.

  16. Re:ROBLIMO IS A DOUCHE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's posts like this that keep me coming back to Slashdot.

    -- Ethanol-fueled

  17. HTML5 by CaptainHayashi · · Score: 1

    Response in subject

    1. Re:HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd much rather use a flash player than encode a video to two different formats and switch between them based on the browser. It was hard to do, but HTML 5 managed to take a step backwards on the video compatibility front.

  18. Re:Honestly, by jitterman · · Score: 2

    That would be everyone who drives for pleasure.

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  19. qw8k? by ischorr · · Score: 1

    How are you supposed to pronounce this? queightk? qwa-eight-kuh? Are you supposed to forget there's a "t" in 8?

    1. Re:qw8k? by ischorr · · Score: 1

      I guess it's sort of like Megadeth's latest album, TH1RT3EN. I imagine that's pronounced th-one-rt-three-en.

      Or the movie Se-seven-en.

    2. Re:qw8k? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      yes, you're supposed to forget that there's a "t" in 8.

      The video does mention how this is pronounced.. specifically.. at 3 seconds in:

      Derek Deville and the Qu8ke (pronounced "Quake") Rocket

    3. Re:qw8k? by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Quake." Seems a bit silly, but I am not going to argue with someone who makes rockets with more range than an early Scud.

    4. Re:qw8k? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Turn in your geek card, son. You're pathetic. Oh, to answer the question, QUAKE. As in the old FPS game. Oh, sorry, you're not a nerd, that's First Person Shooter. A game where you run around an old castle shooting other people who are also running around shooting you, on the internet. It used to be my favorite.

      Now go back to your NASCAR show.

      Sheesh, we never used to have dweebs like that at slashdot.

    5. Re:qw8k? by ischorr · · Score: 1

      Wow, what an unabashed jerk you are.

      Of course I know how to pronounce it. It's just a silly spelling, which was my tongue-in-cheek point =)

      Thinking of old first-person Id games, do you know what day the original Doom was released, off the top of your head, sonny? 'Cause I remember downloading a copy from the local BBS when it came out on 12/10/93. Did you ever purchase a copy of the original Hovertank 3d direct from Softdisk? Do you remember who was revealed to be the "real" villain of Doom II if you played a particular sound clip backwards and used noclip to find him? Do you remember word for word what the easter egg message said? Don't look it up.

      As far as rockets go, how detailed was YOUR Saturn V model rocket with F-size motors?

    6. Re:qw8k? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Old geezer fight! Old geezer fight!!

      I wonder on whose lawn they'll fight?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:qw8k? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yours, of course.

    8. Re:qw8k? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Wow, what an unabashed jerk you are.

      I? You savage the rocket man by acting like a twelve year old punk and call me a jerk? Congrats, you get the hypocrite of the week award.

    9. Re:qw8k? by ischorr · · Score: 1

      It only just now occurred to me that you're a troll. Good one, I fell for it.

  20. Ballistic missile defense by timeOday · · Score: 0
    The US govt's seemingly quixotic investment of hundreds of billions in missile defense seems more justified in light of this. When "some guy" can do it, it can't be long until almost any nation can.

    Longer term I have the same concern about nuclear weapons. What if somebody found a simple, cheap way to make highly enriched uranium? It would be a disaster.

    1. Re:Ballistic missile defense by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The US govt's seemingly quixotic investment of hundreds of billions in missile defense seems more justified in light of this. When "some guy" can do it, it can't be long until almost any nation can.

      Longer term I have the same concern about nuclear weapons. What if somebody found a simple, cheap way to make highly enriched uranium? It would be a disaster.

      You don't need highly enriched uranium, just enough smoke detectors.

    2. Re:Ballistic missile defense by Bomazi · · Score: 1

      You'll need more than 200 billion detectors though. Good luck with that.

    3. Re:Ballistic missile defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you must fear nuclear disaster, fear hydrogen bombs primed by other means than nuclear fission. I hear lasers can be used for this.

    4. Re:Ballistic missile defense by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Actually, about 200 of them plus some lithium batteries and mantles from coleman lanterns. The americium-241 in the smoke detectors is used to convert the thorium-232 to make uranium-233 with the lithium used as a catalyst. The uranium-233 is fissionable or can be used to make a dirty device. There are a couple of other requirements that I have left out, but are commonly available from big box stores as my intention is not to have anyone actually do this. The point being, though, is that it isn't too hard.

    5. Re:Ballistic missile defense by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      You'll need more than 200 billion detectors though. Good luck with that.

      Or hire a lot of illegal immigrants to take apart detectors. Many drug dealers did this with Sudafed tablets back when you can buy the pills without papers. They bought them by the boxes, hired illegals for low wages to tediously pop the tablets out of the packages and crush them into a container. A PBS show about meth (or some other illegal drug) interviewed various people about this. One meth house in AZ (I think) is where they hired some illegals and gave them $6/hr to "process" sudafed tablets, illegals didn't know what specially it was for but it was pretty good wages without toiling in the hot sun. One of these guys after awhile advocated they should ask for $9/hr, but the others said for him to not create problems with the gringos. Later the house was raided by DEA but none of the dealers there and the illegals were of little value for tracking down the dealers than hired them. When the illegals found out dealers were clearing millions in profit, "Damn! I told you we should have ask for $9/hr!"

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    6. Re:Ballistic missile defense by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Actually, about 200 of them plus some lithium batteries and mantles from coleman lanterns. The americium-241 in the smoke detectors is used to convert the thorium-232 to make uranium-233 with the lithium used as a catalyst. The uranium-233 is fissionable or can be used to make a dirty device. There are a couple of other requirements that I have left out, but are commonly available from big box stores as my intention is not to have anyone actually do this. The point being, though, is that it isn't too hard.

      If it's not that hard, how come Al Qaeda (or whoever) haven't done it yet?

      There are only really three possibilities:
      1. Terrorists are squeamish about using nukes;
      2. The security services have managed to intercept and prevent every attempt to use one, or
      3. You're wildly exaggerating the ease of construction.

      Number 3. seems the likeliest of these to me.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Ballistic missile defense by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      There are only really three possibilities:

      1. Terrorists are squeamish about using nukes;

      2. The security services have managed to intercept and prevent every attempt to use one, or

      3. You're wildly exaggerating the ease of construction.

      Number 3. seems the likeliest of these to me.

      Yeah, I'm wildly exagerating. Just tell that to the boy scout in Michigan who was arrested for building a breeder reactor doing exactly what I described.

    8. Re:Ballistic missile defense by Bomazi · · Score: 1

      If you had paid attention you will know that his reactor didn't work. An Am-241 alpha source with an Al/Be target is much too feeble of a neutron source to start a breeder. You'll need a strong neutron emitter like Cf-252. But you won't find that in a hardware store. My estimate of 200 billion detectors is based on the critical mass of Am-241/Np-237.

    9. Re:Ballistic missile defense by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I think the flaw was in his neutron gun, very inefficient. We basically did this in college in the 1980s in my nuclear engineering class. We didn't use smoke detectors, but did use 100mcg of Am-241. However, our neutron gun was much more significant as were the sources of other ingredients. We were not actually attempting to start a breeder, but instead were investigating different neutron gun designs.

      Regardless, even if the kid wasn't successful building his reactor, he produced enough radioactive waste (39 55gal barrels of it) that he could have easily made a dirty bomb.

  21. Re:Scan to 2:37 for a shot of his PE resin girlfri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Msg to fellow nerds, have a girl do a walk through inspection before camera's roll in.

    I'm sorry.. a true nerd does not know any girls and if they did, no girl would want to cooperate. Who do you think those lady part casts were bought for???

  22. Is it considered safe for a hamster passenger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wanted to put hamsters in rockets..

    1. Re:Is it considered safe for a hamster passenger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's slightly safer for the hampster to be inside the rocket than underneath, above, or attached to the outside of it. Beyond that, I'd need to centrifuge a few hampsters, determine their pressure, temperature, and vibration tolerances, then test their terminal velocity, and finally their ability to withstand the sudden deceleration upon impact with various landing surfaces before I could give a definite answer. I imagine the answer is "no", but it seems like a fun set of experiments!

  23. 1st time was enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We don't need an article every time this kid decides to launch one of his toys.

  24. Even more interesting... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 0

    Is the lower female torso he has in his junk pile. Me thinks he's been working on his pocket rocket too...
     

  25. Slashdot - is it really so fscking hard... by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... to have videos that work through company firewalls - ie use port 80? youtube can manage it along with dozens of other sites. Why can't you??

    1. Re:Slashdot - is it really so fscking hard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't slashdot's fault that your company has incompetent network administrators. Blame them if your 'internet access' is HTTP only.

    2. Re:Slashdot - is it really so fscking hard... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing incompetent about it junior, its the way most large companies do things these days. When you leave school and get a job you'll find that out.

    3. Re:Slashdot - is it really so fscking hard... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Life at my company is good.
      Peons get Google maps and the company site.
      Managers get what I give them.
      I get everything.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  26. Re:Honestly, by Metabolife · · Score: 5, Funny

    [quote]and do so in very remote areas where the material disperses to immeasurable levels immediately[/quote]

    You might as well fire it off in LA then since you won't be able to measure the change there either.

  27. So putting it into perspective ... by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... in 30 seconds this tiny little rocket manages to output almost the same amount of pollutants as a 40 ton truck produces in an hour? And you think thats clean??

    I've nothing against this guy and his hobby, it looks fun, but please, lets not pretend that rockets are the slightest bit enviromentally friendly!

    1. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... in 30 seconds this tiny little rocket manages to output almost the same amount of pollutants as a 40 ton truck produces in an hour? And you think thats clean??

      I've nothing against this guy and his hobby, it looks fun, but please, lets not pretend that rockets are the slightest bit enviromentally friendly!

      It's worth noting here that pretending the rockets are environmentally friendly, is less of a fraud than pretending they are environmentally dangerous.

    2. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by dlgeek · · Score: 2

      And this tiny little rocket is only going to be burning for 30 seconds at most once every few months, whereas that 40 ton truck is going to be running for hours and hours on end, every day, with 10s of millions of peers.

      The rocket simply doesn't even register.

    3. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but when it is running its approximately 3600/30 = 120 times more polluting than a vehicle that weighs something like 200 times its weight. Those are not good figures for any form of propulsion.

    4. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by dlgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The two aren't even close to comparable, for two reasons: 1.) That's only valid if you're comparing two means to accomplish the same goal. If someone was suggesting moving cargo on land via rocket-power, your complaints would almost be justified (except, see below), but these accomplish completely seperate goals. Come up with a less polluting way to get into space, we'll certainly listen to you.

      2.) You're comparing pollution per time, not pollution per mile. If you want a fair comparison, you want the total amount of pollution to accomplish the task. If I could (theoretically) come up with a rocket system that can move cargo along a 60-mile track in less than 30 seconds, compared to a truck that'd take an hour to do it, I still come out ahead even though the rocket pollutes more per second than the truck.

    5. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by Psion · · Score: 1

      In that 30 seconds, the rocket traveled 22 miles.

    6. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Come up with a less polluting way to get into space, we'll certainly listen to you."

      It didn't go into space. Helium balloons can go just as high using zero fuel.

      "come up with a rocket system that can move cargo along a 60-mile track in less than 30 seconds, compared to a truck that'd take an hour to do it, I still come out ahead even though the rocket pollutes more per second than the truck"

      Unlikely. Say the truck does 2 mpg - that'll be 30 gallons of fuel. There is no way that a rocket would get even close to using that little fuel to push 40 tons 60 miles along the ground at sea level.

    7. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Helium came from where? Extracted and mined how environmentally friendly?

    8. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ... in 30 seconds this tiny little rocket manages to output almost the same amount of pollutants as a 40 ton truck produces in an hour? And you think thats clean??

      I don't think he called it clean, (what is clean?) he said it didn't matter. The guy's not firing a rocket every thirty seconds. I suspect there is significant time, days or months, between firings. Contrast this with a fleet of buses idling overnight in the winter because they didn't want the diesel to congeal from the cold. There are a lot of things that are trivially more pollutant by orders of magnitude.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: in 30 seconds this tiny little rocket manages to output almost the same amount of pollutants as a 40 ton truck produces in an hour? And you think thats clean??

      It is unclean for 30 seconds in 3 years to the approximate degree of one truck in 100,000 regionally for an hour. So yes it is exactly that unclean. Dimming flicker in time and space scale unclean. Below detection level unclean. Clean.

      Note the use of the word perspective.

      JJ

    10. Re:So putting it into perspective ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And this tiny little rocket is only going to be burning for 30 seconds at most once every few months, whereas that 40 ton truck is going to be running for hours and hours on end, every day, with 10s of millions of peers. The rocket simply doesn't even register.

      Yes, but the truck is actually doing useful work. It's not just sitting there polluting for the sake of it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  28. Re:Scan to 2:37 for a shot of his PE resin girlfri by stjobe · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with nipples? Most shop mannequins where I live have them.

    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  29. Re:Scan to 2:37 for a shot of his PE resin girlfri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, I really cannot imagine why this is in a rocket shot next to the other PE resin stuff. My best guess is that he was ordering from a shop and they said, "hey do you want a couple of cast lady parts *with* nipples?"

    Female nipples eh? I'm just glad we didn't get to see a different kind of resin cast of his other rocket parts!

  30. answers Re:Two questions about rocket design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) Yes, this is basically a purely ballistic device with passive stability. Start putting any sort of guidance or active control on it and you're changing a "high power amateur rocket" into a "guided missile" which will attract a LOT of attention from the authorities.

    2) Fin design is fairly well understood in a textbook and practical sense. People have been building things with fins for millenia, and the science of aerodynamic stability is well known. It *is* tricky in some ways because the CG of the rocket is continuously changing as the fuel burns, not to mention that for a BIG rocket like this, the atmospheric density changes a lot. The hard part is keeping the fins intact under the loads.

    3) a Rockoon? Been done, not entirely clear that it helps a whole lot. You buy a lot of mass and complexity to avoid the first 30km of flight, but to get into orbit takes a whole lot more energy. But there are folks experimenting with it. It's a lot cheaper to just buy more fuel and build a bigger rocket than to deal with building and flying balloons (High Altitude Ballooning has it's own share of complexities both in an Engineering and regulatory standpoint).

  31. Transcript - although you really should watch this by QuasiSteve · · Score: 3, Informative

    Title: Derek's "Amateur" Rockets Fly to 120,000+ Feet
    Description: Derek Deville builds amazing rockets. For fun.

    [00:00] <TITLE>
    The Slashdot logo with "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." scrolls and zooms along the left side of the view, superimposed over a 'small' rocket's take-off event.

    [00:03] <TITLE>
    Derek Deville and the Qu8ke (pronounced "Quake") Rocket

    [00:03] Timothy>
    Derek Deville is a serious amateur rocket maker.
    Today, Derek was kind enough to allow me both into his home workshop, and here in the former Chess Hall of Fame, his current workplace, where many of the parts for Qu8ke were actually fabricated.

    [00:16] <TITLE>
    A picture of a workshop with a large cylindrical casing on struts with a man, Derek Deville, is in view.

    [00:16] Derek>
    This is a filament-wound composite casing, aluminum-wrapped with a phenolic carbon fibre-wrapped nozzle.
    This is a 5,000lbs thrust hybrid motor.
    We fired this one already.
    These have enough fuel to burn for 34 seconds.
    We've tested full duration burns.

    [00:33] <TITLE>
    A rocket motor test, with large high velocity exhaust plume, is shown.

    [00:54] <TITLE>.
    Back to the workshop, the view pans to a large cylindrical metallic object standing upright and a set of other cylindrical casings stacked up beside it.

    [00:54] Derek>
    This is the aluminum test version of that.
    I wouldn't even dare to lean this all the way over; it's too heavy, it's still got propellant in it.
    It's another 12 inch.
    There's another 12 inch casing over there, and a bunch of 6 inch stuff.
    The 12 inch ones are what we call the Hyperion Two, and the 6 inch is the Hyperion One.

    [01:14] <TITLE>
    The video pans upward along a set of racks, revealing a rocket with stabilization fins laying across the top struts of the racks.

    [01:14] Derek>
    You can see up there is a 16 inch full-scale nike smoke.
    It doesn't have a nosecone on it, it's got a different nosecone on it, temporarily.

    [01:23] <TITLE>
    The view changes to a zoomed in view of the rocket being discussed.

    [01:24] Derek>
    But that is one I made a P-motor for and flew at an LDRS [...]

    [01:28] <TITLE>
    The view changes back to the view of the racks, and follows Derek around the workshop.

    [01:28] Derek>
    [...] some years ago.
    If you swing around over here besides the funky mannequins ...
    Oh, here's a piece of finstock.
    This is the finstock that was used for Hyperion.

    [01:39] <TITLE>
    Derek is shown holding the piece of finstock.

    [01:39] Derek>
    This is an extrusion that we had made, so it had that profile matched to 6 inch diameter casing and then had the fin... so that when we trim this to be fin profile, and fin profile with leading and trailing edges, and drill it out.. and then this would be secured directly onto the motor casing.

    [02:01] Derek>
    So this is a compression-molded phenolic nozzle that forms the convergence, the throat, and the divergence.
    These are glued into a XX grade [ia] phenolic liner with another compression-molded phenolic forward closure.
    The injector would seal right in here and then eject, you can see the tapered cone, the way that the nitrous impinged the fuel grains.
    This is a fully-consumed fuel grain.
    This is about a Q motor.

    [02:40] Derek>
    And then 12 inch versions here.
    Similar to what was done with Qu8ke, we had kevlar molded nose cones made for Hyperions back in the day.
    That fits the 6 inch motor casing.

    [02:55] <TITLE>
    The same rocket launch from the opening title is shown.

    [03:00] <TITLE>
    Video following Derek around the machine shop is shown.

    [03:00] Derek>
    This is the Syntheon machine shop.
    This is where all the Qu8ke machining parts were made.
    We've got a standard lathe and a precision, smaller, lathe.
    Nose cone parts were fabricated here.
    Standar

  32. Heads Up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Noob question. This rocket was pretty big... how do rocketeers like Derek ensure that when their rocket returns to earth, it doesn't cause some form of death and destruction? How accurately can you calculate how far the rocket will drift away from the launch site on the way up, then back down?

    1. Re:Heads Up? by PPH · · Score: 2

      "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
      That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun

      Apologies to Tom Lehrer.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Heads Up? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2

      Flights like this are only allowed in areas where you have many miles of clear space for recovery.

      How far the rocket drifts depends primarily on winds, which vary in speed/direction at different altitudes. There are various simulation packages (like RockSim or OpenRocket) that allow you to run flight simulations and generate landing predictions based on prevailing wind conditions, parachute size, etc.

      The most important technique for reducing the recovery distance is multi-stage recovery, where the large main parachute isn't deployed until a very low altitude, specifically to reduce the distance the rocket will be carried by wind. A typical system might simply break the rocket into 2 tethered pieces at apogee (causing it to tumble or flat spin down rather than becoming a ballistic lawn dart), then pop out the main chute at 1500 feet or so. Control of the recovery system deployment is typically done with a combination of barometric pressure sensors and accelerometers, usually contained within a commercially available altimeter module, which records peak altitude and other flight data. The one I use on most of my larger rockets is here:

      http://www.marsa4.com/

      , but there are several manufacturers of similar devices serving this market.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:Heads Up? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Careful! Wernher von B is a bit of a hero around slashdot, seeing as he's (a) a rocket scientist and (b) a fucking Nazi.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Heads Up? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier just to fit a small nuclear bomb to the rocket and remote detonate it high in the atmosphere somewhere? That way you'd only get tiny particles hitting the ground, with minimal chance of casualties.

      Plus, if any super villain tried to steal your rocket in space a la Moonraker, you could give them a nasty surprise.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Heads Up? by sej192 · · Score: 1

      Hello, I'm Sandra, and I'm very interested to know how does the recovery system specifically works in Qu8K. I'm a student and I actually have to write a work about it and it has been very difficult to find specific information. I know about the pneumatic cylinder, but I don't know what triggers its motion, and would be grateful if you could help me. I thank you in advance.

  33. No HCl or Al2O3 involved here.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2

    His motor was a hybrid, using liquid nitrous oxide as an oxidizer and cast phenolic as a fuel grain.

    The HCl and Al2O3 would be found in the exhaust of a more conventional ammonium perchlorate composite motor, not a hybrid.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:No HCl or Al2O3 involved here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the propellant was almost certainly ammonium perchlorate composite (APCP, or APC). His page shows the rocket build, including casting the fuel grain. There is no oxidizer tank. Cast phenolic is used to support and insulate part of the nozzle throat. Plus, nobody uses cast phenolic as a fuel grain in N2O hybrid motors, its mostly HDPE, sometimes polypropylene.

    2. Re:No HCl or Al2O3 involved here.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Watch the video. He clearly refers to a hybrid motor.

      He shows a cross-sectioned motor after it was burned, talking about the installation of the nitrous injector at the forward end, and showing the eroded remains of the phenolic inside the chamber.

      He was using a somewhat unusual design, with the forward bulkhead/closure, fuel grain, and exhaust nozzle all being parts of one large assembly.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:No HCl or Al2O3 involved here.... by Heretic2 · · Score: 1

      No idea what you people are saying, but it's cool as shit either way.

    4. Re:No HCl or Al2O3 involved here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: His motor was a hybrid, using liquid nitrous oxide as an oxidizer and cast phenolic as a fuel grain. The HCl and Al2O3 would be found in the exhaust of a more conventional ammonium perchlorate composite motor, not a hybrid.

      Cool! A hybrid is even less polluting and less of an environmental hazard than APCP.

      More water, about double the carbon, no HCl, no aluminum oxide or less if any, and some stuff like carbon monoxide, a bunch of CO2, NO, and even O2!

      More good less bad, but still a tiny amount, despite its extreme performance, as compared to a common freight system operating for >120 times the time. The cool difference is "massflow"!!

      JJ

      Spaceward Ho!

  34. Re:Honestly, by budgenator · · Score: 1

    I'm not interested in knowing a guy that pollutes air and makes a lot of noise for his pointless and childish hobby. Real nerds feel free to mod me down.

    Everybody knows Rocket smoke isn't pollution and road-trip food like Chilli-Cheese Fries don't make you fat!

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  35. Ass! by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    At 2:37.

    No lie.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  36. Re:ROBLIMO IS A DOUCHE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite part was when the slashdot banner obscured the only shot from the ground of the rocket heading skyward

  37. Re:Honestly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I bet you could measure the damage caused when it lands

  38. Re:Scan to 2:37 for a shot of his PE resin girlfri by dlgeek · · Score: 2

    1.) He mentions "Beside that stack of manequins" earlier in the video.

    2.) He works for a MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY. I can't imagine they'd have any reason to prodouce various fascimilies of the human body. None at all come to mind...

  39. Quake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be Qua-ate-k??

  40. ROI on a used rocket? Stellar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's the return on investment on a used rocket?

    >What's the return on investment on a used rocket?

    Let's see. Two guys apply for a high paying engineering job. One has a degree. The other is a world class rocket builder. Who get the job?

    Two guys date the same hot girl. One has a nice house. The bother is a world class rocket builder with high paying engineering job. Who gets the girl?

    I'd say its a pretty good investment. Of course, he could play safe and invest in housing instead. Because we all know that house values never go down.

    1. Re:ROI on a used rocket? Stellar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is awesome, but let's not pretend his skill set will trump any other candidate's across all "high paying engineering jobs". It might in many cases, but not all.

    2. Re:ROI on a used rocket? Stellar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's see. Two guys apply for a high paying engineering job. One has a degree. The other is a world class rocket builder. Who get the job?

      The guy with the degree of course. HR will throw the other resume out.

      Two guys date the same hot girl. One has a nice house. The bother is a world class rocket builder with high paying engineering job. Who gets the girl?

      The guy with the big house of course. "Hey want to come back to my place and relax in my hot tub?" Or "Hey want to see my rocket? --SLAP"

      You really need to re-adjust your perspective of what is attractive to women and employers.

    3. Re:ROI on a used rocket? Stellar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the rocket builder can actually perform the calculations to prove that his work is safe, him. Otherwise he would not only be worthless as an engineer, but a liability. Technician or consultant, sure.
      anyone with experience can build a building that will stand, it takes an engineer to build one that will barely stand.

    4. Re:ROI on a used rocket? Stellar. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      What's the return on investment on a used rocket?

      >What's the return on investment on a used rocket?

      Let's see. Two guys apply for a high paying engineering job. One has a degree. The other is a world class rocket builder. Who get the job?

      Two guys date the same hot girl. One has a nice house. The other is a world class rocket builder with high paying engineering job. Who gets the girl?

      In a just world, the other would in both cases. But this isn't a just world.

      Perhaps if the hiring manager was an engineer himself and could see the value in practical experience instead of "playing it by the numbers", and perhaps if the girl was a geek herself, things would work out the way you describe. And if that's how it worked out for you, bravo!

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:ROI on a used rocket? Stellar. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Two guys date the same hot girl. One has a nice house. The bother is a world class rocket builder with high paying engineering job. Who gets the girl?

      The one who is more interested in girls than boys' toys, I should think.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:ROI on a used rocket? Stellar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy with the degree of course. HR will throw the other resume out.

      Companies where HR works like this are on their way to extinction.
      Also: one guy has a degree and a large house, the other guy has a degree and is a rocket builder. The house was the investment, not the degree.

  41. Re:ROBLIMO IS A DOUCHE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So inspired." and using commas to quote someone... man, do I see your point! Plus, I bet I would have understood this paragraph SOOOO much better if he had gotten that degree and used "the Ivy-league diction" that you appear to be requesting (?) . ... Don't worry, one day you too will get that "ENGLISH MAJOR" and also create awesome slashdot posts that we can ALL enjoy! :)

  42. Simple Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After seeing the world from 120k Ft, I was most impressed by the simple green product placement in this video.

  43. I have to wonder by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    when he will get the visit from humorless dicks in dark suits wearing mirrored sunglasses, asking about his finances and political leanings - assuming he hasn't already.

    1. Re:I have to wonder by denobug · · Score: 1

      Haha good point. But since he's got to get an FAA clearance to make a test flight I'm sure he's got the proper clearance already, making him less likely to be scrutinized under a microscope. That is, until he start messing with rockets that does have lateral movement (i.e. a missile).

      Perhaps US is one of the very few countries today that it is relatively easy for an individual to test or launch a rocket without getting government interference/harassment. Try to do this in a country like China, you and your family will most likely disappear the next day.

    2. Re:I have to wonder by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      when he will get the visit from humorless dicks in dark suits wearing mirrored sunglasses, asking about his finances and political leanings - assuming he hasn't already.

      You mean venture capitalists?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  44. I assume it was a Q motor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It didn't say in the blurb or in the video, but I assumed he was using a Q motor from the name of the rocket. (An A motor is what you buy at the local store, a B motor is twice as big as an A motor. A "C" motor is twice as big as an B motor, or four times as large as an A motor. Keep going down the alphabet, with each new letter twice as large as the one preceding it. Q is 16 letters away from A, so a Q motor is 2^16 times (65536x) as big as an A motor. It didn't say what he used in this motor although he did mention in the video that a previous motor used Ammonium Perchlorate (what they used in the solid rocket boosters in the Space Shuttle, or what blew up at PEPCON when the shuttle was grounded and they stopped taking delivery, but insisted that PEPCON keep manufacturing...and storing 5 million pounds on site in the hot Nevada desert, and with no more room for storage a welder had to build new storage racks, and hot welding sparks and...and...3.8 on the Richter scale).

  45. MODERATORS!! HELP! DIAL 911!!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up

  46. Re:Honestly, by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    What if it lands in Compton?

  47. Why bother with the 8? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother with the 8 then?

  48. I bet by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2

    I bet Chuck Norris could drive a car into the stratosphere.

    1. Re:I bet by thebeige · · Score: 2

      Chuck doesn't drive, the car moves for him.

  49. Re:Scan to 2:37 for a shot of his PE resin girlfri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's perfectly obvious that the cast resin lower half model of female anatomy was used for repeated thrust experiments, load capacity, endurance and peak nozzle emission experiments....

  50. Re:Honestly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well in some cases, yes, it would cause improvement.

  51. Uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You too can shoot down a satellite...

  52. Re:ROBLIMO IS A DOUCHE! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1
    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  53. Re:Honestly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q: You might as well fire it off in LA then since you won't be able to measure the change there either.

    Yep. Been there done that.

    http://v-serv.com/usr/fx-therunningman.htm

    JJ :)

  54. Re:Honestly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q; What if it lands in Compton?

    Property value increases, education starts in the community.

  55. damn right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome individual. Inspiring dude and ACME lol in one.

    And if any of u pro-federal minions have a problem with this guy, and that he might be a terrorist, that's because ..ur a minion.
    If the American government did it's job and won over people like this guy and cultivated his obvious horizon-less gifts, there would be no problem but instead they're busy hyper-failing. (Deliberate or accidental fail is still fail)

  56. math is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    150 * 800ft = 120,000 ft or 22miles. a bit shy of "about" 33 miles.

    given the ratio, it could be original author meant 33 km, 33km is 107,250ft. closer.

  57. I post a lot of angry shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man when that rig got up in the blue like that I thought, "damn, what do all those stupid fucking laws men write matter up here in the sky that I am leaving behind? " Space technically but not an orbit. ;o( fuck when it got a certain height I thought, where's the next rocket stage, one more 12" 'er?! nope ... raurgh
    But I got to give the shit to slas this time cause O lindsy@elReg ain't horned out of steel and cavilar and phenalicz . I worked on jets those nosecones that /. makes are works of art! The truth is I never really thought about nosecones on aircraft or rockets. I seen the noseconez swung open on jets, with ladders all over the panels and boxen and I know what was up as far as the electrikz, but I never thought about the actual SHAPE, or MATERIAL why it was that way, stuff, or color. Slashdot is dark couple or so off ARG(My) green color so chemotherapy is the paint job I suggest next time. You should have www.backslash.net, whoops. ;o(

    welp it's my birthday. Fucking Kick ass and stomp on /. I kno you can.

    1. Re:I post a lot of angry shit by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know it's almost impossible to go full retard on slashdot and post everything in CAPITALS, but you did the next best thing. Well done.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  58. Re:Honestly, by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    The thing is, if this was some high school dropout building drag racers or racing motorbikes, no one here would be that impressed.

    But because it's "rocket science" everyone is drooling.

    Is there anything he does that actually helps us learn how to make better rockets? If not, it is indeed just a noisy hobby.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  59. Starcraft Fan Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loves all his casual usage of the name "Hyperion".

    Dan O.

  60. Re:ROBLIMO IS A DOUCHE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DIAF, rob.

  61. Check Derek's website if you want specifics... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    http://ddeville.com/derek/Qu8k.html

    He appears to be using a pneumatic cylinder which is actuated by a small charge of black powder, rather than compressed air.

    Black powder is very commonly used in high power rocketry for the deployment of recovery systems. The black powder is set off by means of an electric match or similar electric igniter, fired by the altimeter or flight computer.

    The typical HPR hobby rocket would contain 2 independent charges, one which is fired at apogee, and another to deploy the main chute at a lower altitude.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org