Just $10M Keeping "Red Neck Rocket Scientist" From Reaching Space

First Sentence by MagdJTK · 2012-07-22 07:17 · Score: 4, Funny

...who also happens to Space Transport and Recovery (STAR) Systems...

I think you accidentally a word.

Re:First Sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:26 · Score: 0

The way people write today, you're lucky that more than half the sentence has actual words.
Re:First Sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:31 · Score: 0

Is that bad?
Re:First Sentence by Hentes · 2012-07-22 07:49 · Score: 1

Or he is talking about Clark Kent.
Re:First Sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:58 · Score: 0

"Sir! Something's happened to the STAR Systems!"
"Jarvis."
Re:First Sentence by dirtyhippie · 2012-07-22 08:07 · Score: 1

makes think does?
Re:First Sentence by jamstar7 · 2012-07-22 09:53 · Score: 1

It wasn't written by political flacks spinning their own agenda.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:First Sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 15:22 · Score: 1

yeah, that's what it was lacking....

There's a reason... by bughunter · 2012-07-22 07:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's a reason NASA's Shuttle budget was immense, and that it takes a billionaire like Elon Musk to succeed at space entrepreneurism: It costs a lot of money to design, build, test, redesign, rebuild, retest, [rinse and repeat...] to the point where you're not being criminally reckless to put a human being in a space vehicle.

And even then, deadly accidents happen.

The Russians do it slightly differently by emphasizing building the hardware and testing it rather than modeling, analysis and simulation, especially in the preliminary design phases. It saves a little money, but is still costly.

Put another way, if garage-built rockets could make it into space, then we'd have orbital, Lunar and asteroid colonies by now.

But one of these days, technology and materials will allow "garage" projects like this. Perhaps the time has come. I wish him luck. It takes cojones grandes to be the first. If he's patient, deliberate, extraordinarily cautious, and more than a little lucky then he can pull it off.

--
I can see the fnords!

Re:There's a reason... by History's+Coming+To · 2012-07-22 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Depends on your definition of "criminally reckless" I suppose. There's a well worn meme of astronaut candidates asking if they'd be happy taking a Mars mission if there was a 50/50 chance of survival - the "correct" response is apparently "No, but if you can get it down to 90% chance of survival I'll go..."

My point is that there's no shortage of people willing to risk their lives to go into space, and even if there was a good chance of dying there's still plenty of people who would still strap themselves in. It's not the human lives that are the issue, it's the taxpayers money and, at the end of the day, the political careers that are at stake. How long would the European discovery and colonisation of America have taken if we required a 90% survival rate on sea voyages in the 1600s?

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Re:There's a reason... by Zadaz · 2012-07-22 07:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've seen their "shuttle" in person. The workmanship is incredibly poor. I mean even poor for a home-built spaceship mockup. Structurally and aerodynamically it was crap. They are, at best, hobbyists with big dreams. Poke around their web site and look for drop tests or wind-tunnel tests of their flight system. They only thing they have is a video of testing at 2" rocket motor that generates "~30lbs of thrust" for 5 seconds. Good luck getting to space on that. (For comparrison a single Estes E9 rocket motor that sells for $5 at the hobby store can generate 5lbs of thrust for 3 seconds.)
I'm not saying that's it's impossible to go from zero to orbit on $10 million (though it probably is, at least in 2012) but I am saying I wouldn't invest a bent penny to Space Transport and Recovery Systems.
At the same event I saw their mockup I talked with a few guys from Copenhagen Suborbitals. Those guys are the real deal. They've got the skills, the passion, and are working up a pretty substantial track record of successes.
Re:There's a reason... by AmiMoJo · 2012-07-22 08:09 · Score: 2

I question anyone's ability to do it for $10m, safely or otherwise. To put something that size you you need a fairly big rocket and a lot of fuel. You need a tower to hold it upright, and a launch pad. You could rent one, but it won't be cheap. You need tracking systems around the world to stay in constant contact with the vehicle in orbit.
Even arranging management of the airspace around the launch site costs money. In fact even just the tiles on the Shuttle that prevent it from burning up on re-entry cost more than $10m.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:There's a reason... by Oceanplexian · 2012-07-22 08:18 · Score: 2

Put another way, if garage-built rockets could make it into space, then we'd have orbital, Lunar and asteroid colonies by now.
Yes, the engineering is fantastic, yes, building a space vehicle is going to be expensive and difficult, but I wouldn't go so far to say that it couldn't be a private effort for a fraction of the cost. The Wright's had a high-school education and DIY engineering background. Today we have supercomputers on our desks, access to infinite amounts of knowledge, and engineering tools that the Wright brothers could never have dreamed of.

I think it's fair to say that a lot of low hanging fruit still exists that eludes multi-billion dollar government projects.
Re:There's a reason... by techno-vampire · 2012-07-22 08:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

You need a tower to hold it upright, and a launch pad.

As it happens, you don't need a tower if you use the right design. And, you also don't need those expensive, fragile tiles or an army of engineers manning Mission Control.

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Re:There's a reason... by bughunter · 2012-07-22 08:30 · Score: 1

+1: Interesting.
And thanks for the reference to Copenhagen Suborbitals. It does indeed look like the real thing.

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:There's a reason... by Charcharodon · 2012-07-22 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Considering the first two coloneys had a 90-100% fatalty rate once they made it over the Atlantic, even with a 75-90% survival rate..
The death rate due to disease, the cold, and starvation was still in the 20-30% every year by the time the Constitution was signed.
We've become highly alergic to losses in this day and age. The ancient concept of the volunteer or the unwilling volunteer (aka convicts who owe society a debt) even does not hold water with those with the resources to put together such a project.
Re:There's a reason... by Fuzzums · 2012-07-22 08:53 · Score: 1

I'm just waiting for one of those DIY space thingies to land on my roof. It's instant profit. For me. If I'm not at home, that is.
Actually, the mere thought of such a thing landing on my roof scares the #()$*&) out of me. I can't sleep at night. Ah! Profit!!

--
Privacy is terrorism.
Re:There's a reason... by Charcharodon · 2012-07-22 09:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

you get a fictional -1 mod point for being well....stupid.
If you are going to 100,000 feet by balloon, exactly how aerodynamic and structurally stout does it need to be? They could have just made their first one a big cube for all it would matter. Go up look around, enough structure to have a 18,000 ft cabin pressure (suplimental O2 for the passengers would be required), insulation to keep the temperature above 0C, and to survive a 700-800mph "re-entry" with a parachute landing.
Even a small boost by a rocket to a higher elevation still wouldn't result in more than a 1000-2000mph "re-entry".
You aren't talking about 17,000 mph de-orbits from 2,600,000 feet like the shuttle. A very modest craft could do the job. At that altitude they could even keep balloon attached to their craft not having to worry about the drag to use it slow them down at the other end of their balistic arc if they could find a way to keep it from bursting, say some sort of fast pumping system to store the He to be re-released later, or skip that all together and just use the burst balloon as a drag strip.
Re:There's a reason... by nospam007 · 2012-07-22 09:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Put another way, if garage-built rockets could make it into space, then we'd have orbital, Lunar and asteroid colonies by now."
OTOH in 1969, people thought, If computers could be built in a garage, in 40 years everybody would have one in their pocket.
Re:There's a reason... by cheesybagel · 2012-07-22 09:18 · Score: 1

Uh Elon is not a billionarie. He put like $100M of his own money on SpaceX.
Re:There's a reason... by bughunter · 2012-07-22 09:57 · Score: 2

Uh Elon is not a billionarie.

Citation: Elon Musk Estimated Net Worth: $2B. American engineer, entrepreneur and philanthropist, Elon Musk, has an estimated net worth of $2 billion as of March 2012 according to Forbes rich list.
Sounds like a billionaire to me... but maybe not a billionarie?

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:There's a reason... by jamstar7 · 2012-07-22 09:57 · Score: 1

Put another way, if garage-built rockets could make it into space, then we'd have orbital, Lunar and asteroid colonies by now.
But one of these days, technology and materials will allow "garage" projects like this. Perhaps the time has come. I wish him luck. It takes cojones grandes to be the first. If he's patient, deliberate, extraordinarily cautious, and more than a little lucky then he can pull it off.
Damn, I hope I live long enough to see 'garage project' spacecraft head for space. That would be so damned cool.

My problem is, I'll be way old to build one for myself.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:There's a reason... by cheesybagel · 2012-07-22 10:00 · Score: 2

SpaceX already managed to do their rockets for like a tenth what the NASA cost models predicted. So there is room to do things a lot cheaper.
Re:There's a reason... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-07-22 10:05 · Score: 4, Informative

The survival rate for sea voyages WAS better than 90% in the 1600s. If it weren't, international trade would have been impractical due to the cost of hiring sailors willing to undertake a worse than 90% chance of survival each time you left port.
Re:There's a reason... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-07-22 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

The death rate due to disease, the cold, and starvation was still in the 20-30% every year by the time the Constitution was signed.
If that were true, the median life span would have been between 2 and 3 years. Human existence is impossible at those attrition rates. We can't reproduce fast enough to survive as a species facing those odds.
Re:There's a reason... by cheesybagel · 2012-07-22 12:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Wow Elon is a billionaire now? He wasn't one at the time he started Tesla and SpaceX. One rumor is his first wife divorced him some time back because he was having a cash flow problem at the time. I knew he was doing better now that Tesla actually sells cars and SpaceX got all those launch contracts and Falcon 9 is flying but that is certainly interesting to know. You can check out his previous track record. AFAIK he had ~200 million at the time.
Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 12:19 · Score: 1

a year ago, i also got to see his "spaceplane" as well. The thing is a joke. it uses the same construction techniques as normal avionics so it is pretty dang heavy. the avionics are non-existent. he's currently using off the shelf electronics that aren't certified for spaceflight environments and there was no flight software to speak of. to bad from him, hopes and dreams don't get you to orbit.
disclaimer - I work on rockets for a living. I may be a little biased...
Re:There's a reason... by Hamsterdan · 2012-07-22 12:20 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure iOS and Android devices would qualify

--
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 12:22 · Score: 0

he is a billionaire right now. 10 years ago, when he started SpaceX, he was worth ~200M-ish.
Re:There's a reason... by DerekLyons · 2012-07-22 16:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I find interesting is the default assumption is that NASA is wrong - nobody ever wonders if it SpaceX cut any corners that will come back to bite them in the butt.
Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 17:15 · Score: 0

You don't have to pay them if they die before getting home.
Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 19:07 · Score: 0

Sure looks like someone who knows how to do some things right :).
Re:There's a reason... by Patch86 · 2012-07-22 19:47 · Score: 2

If the loss of life doesn't bother you, then maybe an appeal to the cost is a better argument.
TFA aside (he's never going to get a working rocket for $10 mill, full stop), it costs hundreds of millions to get something into space. If they blew up 90% of the time, NASA would have no money left and nothing to show for it. A manned mission to Mars would cost billions- nobody would be willing to spend billions if there was a 50:50 chance that it would achieve nothing. Not when you can spend the same limited pot of money on other, less risky projects and get a far more reliable source of scientific research out of them.
Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 20:25 · Score: 0

Whoooooshhh
Re:There's a reason... by arth1 · 2012-07-22 22:56 · Score: 2

The survival rate for sea voyages WAS better than 90% in the 1600s. If it weren't, international trade would have been impractical due to the cost of hiring sailors willing to undertake a worse than 90% chance of survival each time you left port.
There are always enough people who think the odds will favour them. And some who don't care.
You had people sign up for armies back then too, despite a much higher than 10% death rate[*].
Yes, ships got lost, and sailors died from syphilis and scurvy, but there were enough people who wanted to sign up. Because a risk of death while being fed and paid beats a much higher risk of starving to death or being hanged for stealing food or money to survive.
[*]: As we've seen here, there are plenty of people wiling to sign up for a trip to Mars with a 0% chance of survival.
Re:There's a reason... by cheesybagel · 2012-07-23 05:17 · Score: 1

Like what? If they were really interested in cutting corners they would not be developing superdraco engines for the CCDev escape system proposal. The Shuttle had no escape system at all and NASA flew it. They could be flying manned flights today if they just added some seats and a life support system to their capsule which is not a particularly hard thing to do. From my experience working for other large well established companies where it is common to outsource everything supposedly to cut costs it comes as no surprise that in their experience vertical integration is cheaper. Especially on a market like this where there is little open competition. Most launch providers do not even publicly announce their prices for anything at all. US rocket engines are mostly built by like one company which is Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne a UTC company. You can try to buy them abroad but you risk being entangled in legal issues. I have even heard people say that SpaceX spends too much time and resources testing their hardware and that they could just do a hold down test at the launch site instead of doing all those stage tests at Texas. It does not seem like they are cutting corners to me.
Re:There's a reason... by mcgrew · 2012-07-23 06:13 · Score: 1

That would only be true if the majority of people were seamen, when in fact only a tiny percent of the population ever got on a boat. I'd wager that the life span of a sailor in those times was less than 30 (they didn't send infants on sea voyages).

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:There's a reason... by mcgrew · 2012-07-23 06:30 · Score: 1

Damn, I hope I live long enough to see 'garage project' spacecraft head for space. That would be so damned cool. My problem is, I'll be way old to build one for myself.
That depends on how old you are. I was 12 when I saw my first computer at a tech show in 1962. At the time they cost millions each and took an entire building to house, and were about as powerful as a TS-1000. Nobody thought that within our lifetimes we'd all have one on our desks an order of magnatude more powerful, and would cost a couple hundred bucks.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 13:12 · Score: 0

If you are going to 100,000 feet by balloon, exactly how aerodynamic and structurally stout does it need to be?
Very. They're hoping to hit Mach 3+ and reenter, and they're also hoping to maintain cabin pressure. Both of these things require a good structural design.

They could have just made their first one a big cube for all it would matter.
No, you cannot just make it a cube. There's the other part of the mission profile where they leave the atmosphere and enter "space" by firing a rocket engine on the Space-Shuttle-like reentry vehicle which the balloon lifted to 100K feet. What was that you were saying about fictional negative mod points for being, well, stupid?

Go up look around, enough structure to have a 18,000 ft cabin pressure (suplimental O2 for the passengers would be required), insulation to keep the temperature above 0C, and to survive a 700-800mph "re-entry" with a parachute landing.
Once again you seem to have been far too dense to actually read their mission profile. They aren't doing a parachute landing. And minimizing the difficulty of maintaining even an 18,000ft cabin pressure is dumb. Guess why you don't see too many homebuilt aircraft rated for high altitude? (hint: cabin pressurization is hard!)

Even a small boost by a rocket to a higher elevation still wouldn't result in more than a 1000-2000mph "re-entry".
Go look at what Space Ship One looked like. Guess what you have to do to reenter from a "small boost by a rocket to a higher elevation"? Either something like that, or something like this shuttle-like design. Either way, you're going to need competent structural design, aerodynamics, etc.
Re:There's a reason... by OneAhead · 2012-07-23 13:26 · Score: 1

Yes, ships got lost, and sailors died from syphilis and scurvy (...)
Ummm... you do know how syphilis is contracted, don't you? Hint: it's not from sitting on a boat with an all-male crew...
Re:There's a reason... by arth1 · 2012-07-23 14:57 · Score: 1

Ummm... you do know how syphilis is contracted, don't you? Hint: it's not from sitting on a boat with an all-male crew...
In a way, it is. Because once they got to port after months at sea, they didn't usually head straight for the library.
The leading theory of how syphilis got to Europe was though sailors on Colombus' ships. One of the (many) past names for syphilis was "sailor's pox".
"Next I remember I woke in the morn
On a the three skysail yarder bound south round Cape Horn
With an old set of oilskins and two pair of socks
And a blooming great head and a case of the pox
And it's row, row bullies row
Them Liverpool Judies have got us in tow"
-- Liverpool Judies, shanty
Re:There's a reason... by DerekLyons · 2012-07-24 03:32 · Score: 1

Like what? If they were really interested in cutting corners they would not be developing superdraco engines for the CCDev escape system proposal. The Shuttle had no escape system at all and NASA flew it.
Because the specification demands an escape system - duh.

It does not seem like they are cutting corners to me.
Just because it doesn't seem like they're cutting corners doesn't mean they aren't being cut - not all corners are visible to an outside observer. (Heck, even the big players have lost boosters and probes in recent history due to such non obvious corners being cut.) I'm also reminded of when John Carmak posted to a space development list years ago recounting the steep learning curve they were suffering through, and ruefully admitting that he'd learned there were good reasons why Big Aerospace did at least some things the way they did. (He'd thrown many such techniques overboard, believing like many armchair engineers that they were mere bloat and gold plating.)

I'm not claiming they cut corners, or defending the notion that they are. I'm merely pointing out that you can't draw a curve through a single point - and one shouldn't uncritically cheer the point just because it confirms your bias.
Re:There's a reason... by Charcharodon · 2012-07-24 14:27 · Score: 1

First off anything would work for their first stage which was to simply go up to 100,000ft and then release. A cube, a sphere, a crappy little homebuilt aircraft, just about anything would work. They don't need anything fancy for their initial testing and customers. Even later on their little shuttle is overkill with what their early business model entails.
The space shuttle re-enters around 17,000mph orbital speed from 500miles up. They're little ship will go up and down maybe 50-60 miles, no orbit involved, no real re-entry involved, even with the booster. There biggest issue will be keeping the aircraft oriented so it doesn't end up tumbling or spinning. They are looking at 1000-3000 mph tops, sub 1000mph if they deploy a drogue chute. Something made out of composites could handle that fairly easily.
I work on aircraft and ~7psi (18,000ft) cabin presure pretty much bone head easy to maintain. Most light aircraft aren't designed for it for performance reasons as in the engine, prop, and wings, not due to some difficultly with keeping the cabin sealed and presurized.
Re:There's a reason... by Charcharodon · 2012-07-24 14:40 · Score: 1

You are right human existence would be impossible at those attrition rates for a static population, but the US did not have a static population. You have newly arrived immigrants and infants making up a large chunk of that number. The infant mortality rate alone was 10-20% until 1900.
The overal death rate was in very incredibly high for the first 300 years of the American experience.
Re:There's a reason... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-07-26 01:18 · Score: 1

There's a big difference between a 10-20% infant mortality rate and a 20-30% mortality rate across the entire population. The latter has never existed in any culture that survived for a generation.

If you are begging for money.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:28 · Score: 0

..you better aim high.

10mil should be enough.

Just $10M Keeping by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:28 · Score: 0

me from having a life of fast cars , faster women and luxury for the rest of my days

Wow, 100,000 feet! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:31 · Score: 0

That's almost three times higher than a passenger airliner!

Space is getting closer every day, it seems.

Re:Wow, 100,000 feet! by History's+Coming+To · 2012-07-22 07:54 · Score: 3

And equal to Kittinger's balloon in the 1960! A mere 52 years ago!

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Re:Wow, 100,000 feet! by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-07-22 08:59 · Score: 1

Just a little thing to think about: Did he actually did everything in "inch here, foot there, gallon here and a furlong there"? because as far as my knowledge goes all the space stuff (i.e. ISS etc.) is designed and made in metric. Going up X feet in the air is regular 'aviation lingo', but from there on, everything is metric.... (Or maybe the editor made it a bit more comprehensible for the imperial-minded (red neck) audience)

So, yes space is getting closer, but if it's all going up and down again (because of incompatibility problems) it's hardly any fun, is it? When it is able to dock to the ISS, the space hotel and the inevitable space brothel (green ladies with n boobs, where n is a natural number of your likings) THEN the fun really starts. I mean, you /have/ read "53 more things to do in zero gravity" right? I am sure D.A. mentioned it :-)

--
rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
Re:Wow, 100,000 feet! by sumdumass · 2012-07-22 10:03 · Score: 2

docking with other objects wouldn't be a problem with the imperial/metric differences. All you need to do is place an adapter over the docking port if the size differences are out of tolerance. We did something very similar with the space shuttle in order to dock with the Russian space station.
Everything else can be converted to or from metric as needed if ever needed.
Re:Wow, 100,000 feet! by garyebickford · 2012-07-22 14:12 · Score: 1

Hey, it's only a two-hour drive, only straight up. Traction is the big problem ...

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:Wow, 100,000 feet! by tragedy · 2012-07-23 12:57 · Score: 1

Well, the Concorde flew at 60,000 feet. Of course, the Concorde doesn't fly any more

Re:Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:34 · Score: 0

I think you meant: "... does it blend?"

Just kickstart it by dutchwhizzman · 2012-07-22 07:39 · Score: 0

He'll have the funds to retire^Wfly to space in no time.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?

Re:Just kickstart it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 08:34 · Score: 0

RTFA he only got 21 thousand using kickstarter. The headline should've been 'Redneck Rocket Scientist 21 grand close to reaching space.'

that's nothing by dirtyhippie · 2012-07-22 07:42 · Score: 4, Funny

this guy's offer sucks. if you give ME $10 million today, i GUARANTEE YOU that i WILL have my first test launch of a mission to jupiter. so what if it's made of rubber bands and has no chance of making it! then on to my next problem: what to do with $9,999,997 =)

Re:that's nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 08:20 · Score: 0

I sincerely doubt anyone would be giving him $10 m without at least seeing a plan first with some 3rd party review. And I doubt he'd expect anything less.
Re:that's nothing by arobatino · 2012-07-22 10:00 · Score: 1

Bender's guarantee
Re:that's nothing by subreality · 2012-07-22 13:35 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, history is full of cranks with over-unity devices reeling in literally millions from people willing to invest in a hypothetical free energy source without even being allowed to see what's in the box or get a vaguely plausible explanation for how it would work. There was one particular guy that managed to get himself in the news every couple of years with rigged demos, each time luring in a few new suckers, going on for decades.
Re:that's nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 14:06 · Score: 0

$3 for a rubber band attempt?! Must be some hefty and expensive rubber bands....

Is it on Kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:44 · Score: 2, Funny

He only needs one million people to give him $10 each.

Re:Is it on Kickstarter? by McGruber · 2012-07-22 10:17 · Score: 1

He only needs one million people to give him $10 each.
Actually, he already was on Kickstarter. He raised $20,843 from 321 supporters:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hermesspace/hermes-spacecraft
Re:Is it on Kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 11:54 · Score: 0

At that average rate of pledging, he only needs 15.064 more supporters.

There's a Darwin by AliasMarlowe · 2012-07-22 07:47 · Score: 4, Funny

I wish him luck. It takes cojones grandes to be the first. If he's patient, deliberate, extraordinarily cautious, and more than a little lucky then he can pull it off.

Yep, it sounds like he's in the running for a Darwin Award.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:There's a Darwin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 07:50 · Score: 0

"Hey ya'll watch this!"
Re:There's a Darwin by bughunter · 2012-07-22 07:55 · Score: 5, Funny

"Hey ya'll hold my beer and watch this!"
Fixed that for you; he's the Red Neck Rocket Scientist after all.

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:There's a Darwin by camperdave · 2012-07-22 10:37 · Score: 1

"Hey ya'll hold my beer and watch this!"
Fixed that for you; he's the Red Neck Rocket Scientist after all.
More like:

Crushing his freshly emptied beer can against his forehead, he slid off from the hood of the 1972 Mercury Comet ("parked" beside the shed until he could replace the tie rod, which had somehow mysteriously snapped in two while he was chasing gophers). "Hey ya'll watch this!", he said as he opened up the shed to reveal his "Top Seckrit Project".
"Hold my beer"... phfft! No redneck'd ever say that!

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:There's a Darwin by cyber-vandal · 2012-07-22 11:04 · Score: 1

Or on the positive side he could be the precursor to Zefram Cochrane.
Re:There's a Darwin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 13:00 · Score: 0

You might be right. He _does_ sound a bit greedy.
Speaking of which, in about 20 years the real Zefram Cochrane is supposed to be born.

Bubba by jklovanc · 2012-07-22 07:50 · Score: 2

Is the Red Neck Rocket Scientist thinking about using the phrase "Hey Bubba, watch this!!" just before he hits the launch button?

Re:Bubba by Occams · 2012-07-23 16:35 · Score: 1

He can't really afford a red button. The procedure is actually to light the blue touch-paper, grab your beer, jump back in the pick-up truck, and get the hell outa therel.

--
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.

Re:Yes but... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-07-22 08:03 · Score: 1

This "shuttle" looks a bit like a GMC van, with a nose-cone. Is there a waterbed with shag carpet in the back?

...we made love in my Chevy van, and that's all right with me...

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Most of NASA's space flight budget is for QA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 08:07 · Score: 0

I'm not saying most of NASA's overall budget, but most of NASA's space flight, in other words going up into space is or at least was to make sure they could get there safely. A lot of research has been done with just NASA alone and that's why it cost so much money for that part alone. You can build your own little space pod for less than $500 if you don't mind that you can't ride in it. I believe a latex balloon does the same and if you really want to make your way into space, it might not cost you all that much but you'll probably die along the way or at least on your way down to earth at maximum velocity.

Re:Yes but... by prehistoricman5 · 2012-07-22 08:18 · Score: 1

I think it looks more like a Reliant Robin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4WzWFKQ20

--
Fuck Beta

Re:Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 08:34 · Score: 0

You mean Raspberry Pi

10 million dollars? by turkeyfeathers · 2012-07-22 08:56 · Score: 1

What's that in BitCoins... this project should appeal to the same characters.

Re:10 million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 15:25 · Score: 0

What time is it?

Keeping him by Bromskloss · 2012-07-22 09:04 · Score: 2

Just $10M Keeping "Red Neck Rocket Scientist" From Reaching Space

- Good day, I'd like to keep the red neck rocket scientist from reaching space.

- That would be ten million dollars, please.

--
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities

Travis Taylor... by BenJeremy · 2012-07-22 09:16 · Score: 1

...would like a word with you, sir.

"He believes..." by JoeMerchant · 2012-07-22 09:35 · Score: 2

For $10M, I think I could build a really big weather balloon and gondola too...

Isn't this term a bit redundant? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 09:57 · Score: 0

I usually just call them "rocket scientists."

10 million is a lot of moonshine by Grayhand · 2012-07-22 09:59 · Score: 2

I guess part of it will be going for a lawn chair and a match.

That was a TV show by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 10:40 · Score: 1

...Staring Andy Griffith, called Salvage 1.

The secret to getting into space is to accelerate gradually.

The project needs a lot of work by ModernGeek · 2012-07-22 11:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The first thing I noticed was the shape of the windows. Notice the sharp edges, and the shape. Looking at the windows on modern spacecraft (in this case, this is a part of the Orion MPCV before being welded together, one can see that there is a large support structure around the window, all of which adds a tremendous amount of weight.

An aerodynamic clone of the space shuttle, such as Buran, must retain the shape in it's exactness, or else it will ruin the design without a lot of testing.

If anything, they could do what Boeing is doing with the X-37C, and scale down the shuttle (though it differentiates from the design slightly).

I see a lot of fundamental flaws. Their idea isn't impossible, but they should focus more on copying what's out there in the public domain before trying to improve the cockpit by adding big protruding windows to the cabin, which will make this thing a deathtrap. To keep costs down, nothing new should be added to this spacecraft that hasn't already been tested by a government over and over (the most expensive part of spaceflight). Normally a space system one or two new technologies to it. If one were to be a scaled copy (say a shuttle designed for two people), it could be done for significantly less.

Personally, if I had $10 million to develop a shuttle, I'd clone three SSMEs, make an orbiter that held two people (scale down of the current orbiter), and make it work without Solid Rocket Motors. I'd also make sure to use the new PICA heat shield tiles (the old orbiters only got new tiles if one fell off).

--
Sig: I stole this sig.

Re:The project needs a lot of work by AK+Marc · 2012-07-22 14:04 · Score: 2

Flat windows are stronger. Curved windows may be necessary for aerodynamics.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:The project needs a lot of work by dbIII · 2012-07-22 20:08 · Score: 1

Notice the sharp edges, and the shape.
Stars above! With windows like that it should fly like a Comet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
That aircraft was probably the last pressurised aircraft with sharp corners in the windows due to cracks starting in the corners and growing each time it was pressurised.
Re:The project needs a lot of work by dbIII · 2012-07-22 20:19 · Score: 1

OK, I just read the post by hermesspace below and see that it's a mockup with perspex windows that's just designed to be looked at and is never going to be pressurised anyway. A real prototype would be different.
Re:The project needs a lot of work by hermesspace · 2012-07-23 02:53 · Score: 1

As you saw already, the rectangular windows are largely a function of it being a prototype. The windows themselves are just plexiglass, the surrounding molding a regular plastic, and the vehicle is not currently pressurized. That is the biggest problem with using rectangle windows... the pressure delta leads to more stress on the corners and the pressure cycling will eventually lead to failure at those points.
When we create our space-rated vehicle, we are looking into a couple of different options for the windows. Our current design has an internal volume that is pressurized, while the outer skin with windows is not pressurized. However, we are also looking into creating a larger internal volume and just using oval-shaped windows with a circular cross-section. Again, it's something we're looking into.

Even the title... by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-07-22 11:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Just $10M Keeping "Red Neck Rocket Scientist" From Reaching Space

So how much should we be spending to keep him from reaching space?

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:Even the title... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 15:31 · Score: 1

"So how much should we be spending to keep him from reaching space?"
Whatever it takes.
That thing looks like The Incredible Shrinking Titanic.
I was unable to detect anything of value other than jargon and buzzwords on the website. Maybe he's playing his cards close to his vest - I'm sure there are any number of people out there looking to steal the technology underpinning his 2" "HRPS" rocket engines and their fearsome 30 pounds of thrust...
Remind me to contact Representative Bachmann, and ask if she'd be interested in an all-expenses paid sub-orbital trip - where, I am given to understand, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control of several de-orbiting satellites.
Re:Even the title... by davester666 · 2012-07-22 17:17 · Score: 1

If you give me $1000, I would build a trebuchet to fling him so he will no longer think about space travel...
I'll even record the flinging and upload it to YouTube as proof.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!

Moonshine powered rocket by jd2112 · 2012-07-22 12:20 · Score: 2

Even if the rocket doesn't get to orbit the pilot surely will...

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

balloon launch? a bit late... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 12:29 · Score: 0

i heard a rumor that the price of He is going to skyrocket over the next few years as the national reserve runs out. so, say goodbye to He party balloons and definitely balloon-assisted launches. Additionally, the ramp up of the private space industry will start to drastically increase consumption and consequently price. This guy is a pretty bad business man if he isn't considering this in his business model.

Re:balloon launch? a bit late... by hermesspace · 2012-07-22 14:03 · Score: 1

I've got a bridge to sell you...
Re:balloon launch? a bit late... by cffrost · 2012-07-22 15:37 · Score: 1

I've got a bridge to sell you...
Let me guess... $10M cheap?

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan

Re:Yes but... by WindBourne · 2012-07-22 13:30 · Score: 2

I think you meant: "... does it blend?"

Yes, it does. Exactly one time: the first time that it crashes.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

response to some questions by hermesspace · 2012-07-22 14:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Hi everyone,

I've been working on the Hermes Spacecraft for about 1.5 years now. I'd like to clear up a few things for you.

Like everything else in our project so far, the vehicle you see is a prototype. It is flight worthy, with some work, but NOT space worthy. If we had full funding immediately, we would set aside the current vehicle and use it for promotion, to send out to schools and other interested parties.

The prototype is made of aircraft composite skins with chrome-moly steel. This makes the craft much heaver and not as robust, but, its significantly cheaper than space rated materials. Revision two, the actual Hermes Spacecraft, will consist of: Chrome-Moly Steel and aluminum airframe, Inconel Standoffs to support outer skin from the fuselage, Carbon-Carbon Skin where needed, etc. etc.

The cockpit, and windows, are not pressurized currently. The windows are just standard plexiglass as is. Again, it boils down to working with the materials that we have, and working towards getting the funding we need. A garage spacecraft cannot support space rated materials unless you're a millionaire/billionaire :)
The reason the prototype was built in the first place is, when Morris Jarvis (the creator/owner of the Hermes) went to seek funding several years ago, he made no progress because he had no prototype/mockup. The decision was then made to create a near-full scale replica of what the vehicle would look like. And here we are...

The wings currently DO fold up. That was a logistics requirement, not a design feature. The prototype had requirements to travel, it's been to California and Texas. With the wings folded up, the craft fits in a standard sized trailer, that can be towed cross country. In the space-rated version, the body and planform would be a single piece.

We successfully raised 20k on Kickstarter to progress our propulsion development. We have a few design iterations to go, but our plan is to use our hybrid propulsion technology to take us to our mission altitude. Our mantra is "build a little, test a lot"; we will be doing a lot of testing for our engines, but we have some unique ideas that will hopefully benefit us. There are a couple guys A LOT smarter than me who are volunteering some of their time for materials selection and propellant combination testing.

I am a huge fan of Copenhagen Suborbitals. I wish them the best.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you guys have. All I ask is that you give us a look and consider supporting us. We're aerospace entrepreneurs. We're used to working with no money, little materials, and making progress. Our passion is space. Our mantra is "Space for All". If you feel the same way, join us!

-Mark

Re:response to some questions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 20:13 · Score: 0

20k raised in a kickstarter?!! so you paid the salary of 1 guy for 2 months and that's supposed to impress people? what a joke.
Re:response to some questions by hermesspace · 2012-07-23 02:59 · Score: 1

STAR Systems core group does not draw any salaries currently (and have not since the project began). We work nights and weekends, in addition to our full time jobs at our respective technical/aerospace companies. All of that money will go towards materials acquisition so we can then create our products (in this case, a large motor test).
That being said, there's nothing I can say that will impress you, specifically, random internet user.

Red Necks and Rockets by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 17:21 · Score: 0

Just $10M Keeping "Red Neck Rocket Scientist" From Reaching Space

Thank god for $10M then! We don't need red-necks in space. Can you imagine? Instead of "we have lift-off" we'd have "Yee Haw! Get 'er done!!!"

Red neck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 17:42 · Score: 0

Is the expression "Red neck" pejorative or is it just me that thinks it is.

Wasnt this a movie, The Astronaut Farmer by detain · 2012-07-22 17:44 · Score: 1

Really good movie... I've seen it several times.

--
http://interserver.net/

Re:Wasnt this a movie, The Astronaut Farmer by hughk · 2012-07-22 23:06 · Score: 1

Yes, loved the film too. But didn't the hero there get his hands on a lot of surplus parts? Many of which now would be mega-restricted in real life now.

--
See my journal, I write things there

Why windows? by slashmojo · 2012-07-22 19:42 · Score: 1

I always wondered why they bother with windows on spaceships these days (cue jokes about bsod and crashing) - why don't they just stick cameras on the outside and screens of some sort on the inside, or even a projector so you could make the 'window' as big as you want.. saves all that structural complication associated with having holes in the hull. I suppose they would drain power but they only need to be on when you actually want to look out.

Actually... by tlambert · 2012-07-22 20:02 · Score: 4, Funny

All of those who left on sea voyages on the 1600s are dead.

Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 22:44 · Score: 0

That's what you think.

I already know what the HRPS engine is... by Tastecicles · 2012-07-22 20:27 · Score: 1

two thousand whipped cream charge canisters filled with RBS-nitrox.

I'm here all week.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.

Obligatory red Neck passenger by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 21:09 · Score: 0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores.jpg

Yeee Haaaaw!

"Hermes" already taken - get a better name by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 21:19 · Score: 0

ESA called (from the 1970s) and they want their name back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_%28spaceplane%29

Re:Yes but... by triffid_98 · 2012-07-22 21:37 · Score: 1

If the Hermes prototype's a-rockin don't come a-knockin?

Oh...and I believe Hollywood has already covered this particular angle, AKA Andy Griffith in SPACE

Cost cutting by GNUThomson · 2012-07-22 22:21 · Score: 1

I'm sure 10M$ is enough and he is using proper technologies: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-01-24/

Just don't tell anyone about your failures by evilandi · 2012-07-23 01:35 · Score: 2

> The Russians do it slightly differently by

...not telling anyone when it goes wrong. Let's not forget, folks, we're all certain that Gagarin was the first man to return from space; what we're less sure about is whether he was the first to go there, or to attempt to go there. If you spent half your national space budget on propoganda and control of the media, you'd have a pretty successful space programme too.

--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com

Re:Just don't tell anyone about your failures by tragedy · 2012-07-23 12:54 · Score: 1

At this late date, would there be any reason to expect that such things would still be kept secret?

Re:Yes but... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-07-23 03:29 · Score: 1

That is so wrong. I dimly remember this from the pages of Starlog, or some such.

Matlock, Mayberry and Mars!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Salvage One FTW by TaxDoktor · 2012-07-23 07:28 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the TV series "Salvage One" that played a long time ago. They developed monohydrazene fuel and built a self contained reusable rocket ship from junkyard parts :-) I think Andy Griffith was the main dude :-)

The windows... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 08:47 · Score: 0

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like it has square windows.

Didn't they learn about this a few years ago?"

Slashdot Mirror

Just $10M Keeping "Red Neck Rocket Scientist" From Reaching Space

121 comments