Hey ROCKET SCIENTEST ( ahem ) it is irrellevent if the silver screen melts when the motor is to be used for a short duration ( a few seconds )! Anyway there are many ceramic based catalyst packs that can be used for hours, as his motors are been built by a company with many years of experience in Peroxide motors I am sure they know this.
If you knew about rocket motors as you claim too, then you would know what ISP or specific impulse is right?? Anyway if you dont it is the measure of force that each lb of propellant can produce. 90% Peroxide can achieve around 170 lbs-sec in comparison to a bi-propellant systems 210-220 lbs-sec at low pressures. ( around 200-300psi as this is required to keep the propellant tank pressure low, which always needs to be around 50psi higher than the combustion pressure. Higher than this requires heavy high pressure tanks or complexed turbo pump systems to get the propellant to the motor chamber )
However the additonal complexity of adding another liquid and the equiptment to store & deliver it to the motor, far out weight the advantages of the mono-propellant option for this project. It is a much better trade off to simply add more Peroxide to get the same result.
Also anybody who has ever built a liquid bi-propellant motor will tell you the complexeties of getting propellants to mix and combust in a stable way far outway the merit a simple catalyst based reaction very attractive.
You may know some rocket theory man but often the highest performance is not the best option, a real rocket engineer knows there are various trade offs to made when considering which system is best.
The peroxide system ahs proven itself over many years on man rated systems, you argument that it wont make thrust is crap as thrust=ISP x propellant mass flow rate. Its that simple as long as the fuel is delivered correctly the desired thrust will be acheieved.
Hey rocket scientist have you ever actually made a rocket????
Dude do you even know what you are talking about?
He is not going into space, he is not trying to reach orbit. It is a ballistic sub-orbital flight, straight up & down...Just like pointing a gun & firing it into the sky, do you think that bullet goes into orbit? Not likley as an object requires over 7500 KM/hr to stay in orbit around the earth.
He is not even leaving the atmosphere, take a look at an Encyclopedia and understand the various regions of earths atmosphere. He is not even leaving the stratosphere.
Every day some where on this clobe someone is flying a home made rocket on such a flight, also people are building fiberglass kit aircraft in there back yard. Also people have been driving drag cars, bikes and even rocket packs using Peroxide. Also parachutes are used safely everyday to drop everything from people to millitary tanks..
SO there for we have a man building a fiberglass rocket airshell ( proven tech )powered by Hydrogen Peroxide ( Proven Tech ) & recovered by parachute ( Proven Tech ), why is this such a problem for you to grasp?
Also it might help you to learn the difference between sub-orbital and orbital flight, maybe then the idea of what this guy is doing wont seem so impossible to you any more. It obviously challanges your small frame of realities so much, that you are wasting all this time & effort trying to prove why it cant be done.
The excellent theory you put together out of snippets of info you found in a Encyclopedia or on the web re: space launching is great except for one thing..
How do you explain space launches from Vandenberg AFB..Isnt that in in California??
No wonder your anonymous
This reaction is taking place in a special designed combustion chamber. It has been designed to contain the pressure of the Hydrogen Peroxide decomp many times over. These gasses are then directed out of a Delaval nozzle which expands and accelerates them. It is not some random dumbing of decombosing Peroxide. This reation is actually quite safe compared to normal liquid fuel rockets which rely on the complete mixing of two liquids. And which are prone to instable cobustion from splashing & hard starting from incorrect mixtures, which can lead to explosions.
The Peroxide reaction basicly creates super hot STEAM see 2xH202=2xH20+02
Before rejecting something out right you need to do more research becomme educated.
Dont believe everything you read in the press dude, because they usally fuck information up to make a story.
Ie " Man devises well thought out plan to design, build and fly a low cost manned rocket vehicle"
Becomes " Toy inventor plans to launch himself in BACKYARD rocket"
Dont believe the hype..
Re:This wouldnt have to do with the X prize would
on
To the Moon, Alice
·
· Score: 1
Your info is wrong check out www.xprize.org
It has nothing to do with NASA first of all.
Its 10 million dollars second of all.
And thirdly it requires a rocket launch of 3 adults to 100km, with the ability to refurbish and relaunch the rocket within 3 days.
Re:If he thinks mexico will let him fly...
on
To the Moon, Alice
·
· Score: 1
Off course the AST wont give him his licence they are Government department in place to serve the interest of large corporations...Just have a look at the unreasnable conditions they placed on CATS prise contestants.
You doubters are all a shame to the title NERDS.. Brian Walker is undertaking one of the most incredible and amazing flights since the Wright brothers. Its shame that you have all been fooled by the corrupt dealings of Governments with endless budgets to spend, pouring there money into massive corporations too glad to spend it.
That is why rockets cost so much, if you where at all educated about the history of the modern rockets you would all know that they where developed from ICBMs. They where first designed in the 50s-60s using what was then state of the art materials and technologies, with no concern placed on cost. These technologies are now beyond redundant but still in use because the companies who produce them have there own senators in congress who make sure they always secure the next Government contract. It is for this reason no new companies can enter the market with simpler and more cost effective technologies, ( see the demise of Beal Aerospace the American Rocket Company etc ). Rockets are not some mystical high technology device, they are in fact simpler than an internal combustion engine. And have been designed, tested & refined for the last 50+ years, the problem is that we are still using 30 + year old technology because of the above stated political and financial pressures. Imagine if computers followed this suit we would still be using the 286??
I have been involved in several entrepreneurial rocket ventures, and the design of several rocket systems of various sizes. As well as having over 16 years first hand experience in experimental rocketry, and I can see that Brian's plan is quite solid. And the main reason is because it is simple, a ballistic flight to 30 kilometres in an unguided rocket vehicle. He is using the same type of propulsion that has been proven for many years to power drag cars, as well as established methods of composite airframe manufacturing for the vehicle.
I draw your attention to the case of the Voyager aircraft that made history by flying the globe, it was built not by a large corporation but by one man Burt Rutan. He designed, tested and built it for under $7million. GE Aerospace cost model for the same project $700 million, did the voyager fall out of the sky because GE didn't build it for $700 million???
The lack of education in many of the replies here is obvious example " what about support infrastructure, and orbital calculations". First of all his not going into orbit it is a ballistic sub-orbital flight, effectively the same as flying a plane near vertical for a few minutes, in terms of infrastructure his design requires little as it is transported to launch site on a mobile launcher. Once again well proven and sound technology, also with today's computer power a couple of Pentium class computers would be all that is need to test and monitor vehicles systems. As he his vehicle is unguided it removes the need for expensive internal guidance navigation and control systems, which are behind most new launch vehicle failures ( see Ariane 5 first launch ). In fact when we strip it down to basic Brian Walker is launching himself in BIG MODEL ROCKET, and that is why he has as good a chance as anybody launching home made rocket at success.
Some real imaginative guy quotes " I hear his got millions, why dosent he just pay the Russians", thats not his goal his goal is to do it by his own hands. Sure and why dont we just let Microsoft write all the worlds software, lets not be pioneers & find better or cheaper ways to things. Meanwhile the rich can go to space for the next 100years becasue nobody else is trying to make affordable space technology.
It will be by the efforts of people such as Brian that you and I will get the opportunity to make this voyage, not by government or big business as they have already had 50 years to get us there and they are still no closer.
Think about that next time before you so openly bag a pioneer.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey ROCKET SCIENTEST ( ahem ) it is irrellevent if the silver screen melts when the motor is to be used for a short duration ( a few seconds )! Anyway there are many ceramic based catalyst packs that can be used for hours, as his motors are been built by a company with many years of experience in Peroxide motors I am sure they know this. If you knew about rocket motors as you claim too, then you would know what ISP or specific impulse is right?? Anyway if you dont it is the measure of force that each lb of propellant can produce. 90% Peroxide can achieve around 170 lbs-sec in comparison to a bi-propellant systems 210-220 lbs-sec at low pressures. ( around 200-300psi as this is required to keep the propellant tank pressure low, which always needs to be around 50psi higher than the combustion pressure. Higher than this requires heavy high pressure tanks or complexed turbo pump systems to get the propellant to the motor chamber ) However the additonal complexity of adding another liquid and the equiptment to store & deliver it to the motor, far out weight the advantages of the mono-propellant option for this project. It is a much better trade off to simply add more Peroxide to get the same result. Also anybody who has ever built a liquid bi-propellant motor will tell you the complexeties of getting propellants to mix and combust in a stable way far outway the merit a simple catalyst based reaction very attractive. You may know some rocket theory man but often the highest performance is not the best option, a real rocket engineer knows there are various trade offs to made when considering which system is best. The peroxide system ahs proven itself over many years on man rated systems, you argument that it wont make thrust is crap as thrust=ISP x propellant mass flow rate. Its that simple as long as the fuel is delivered correctly the desired thrust will be acheieved. Hey rocket scientist have you ever actually made a rocket????
Dude do you even know what you are talking about? He is not going into space, he is not trying to reach orbit. It is a ballistic sub-orbital flight, straight up & down...Just like pointing a gun & firing it into the sky, do you think that bullet goes into orbit? Not likley as an object requires over 7500 KM/hr to stay in orbit around the earth. He is not even leaving the atmosphere, take a look at an Encyclopedia and understand the various regions of earths atmosphere. He is not even leaving the stratosphere. Every day some where on this clobe someone is flying a home made rocket on such a flight, also people are building fiberglass kit aircraft in there back yard. Also people have been driving drag cars, bikes and even rocket packs using Peroxide. Also parachutes are used safely everyday to drop everything from people to millitary tanks.. SO there for we have a man building a fiberglass rocket airshell ( proven tech )powered by Hydrogen Peroxide ( Proven Tech ) & recovered by parachute ( Proven Tech ), why is this such a problem for you to grasp? Also it might help you to learn the difference between sub-orbital and orbital flight, maybe then the idea of what this guy is doing wont seem so impossible to you any more. It obviously challanges your small frame of realities so much, that you are wasting all this time & effort trying to prove why it cant be done. The excellent theory you put together out of snippets of info you found in a Encyclopedia or on the web re: space launching is great except for one thing.. How do you explain space launches from Vandenberg AFB..Isnt that in in California?? No wonder your anonymous
This reaction is taking place in a special designed combustion chamber. It has been designed to contain the pressure of the Hydrogen Peroxide decomp many times over. These gasses are then directed out of a Delaval nozzle which expands and accelerates them. It is not some random dumbing of decombosing Peroxide. This reation is actually quite safe compared to normal liquid fuel rockets which rely on the complete mixing of two liquids. And which are prone to instable cobustion from splashing & hard starting from incorrect mixtures, which can lead to explosions. The Peroxide reaction basicly creates super hot STEAM see 2xH202=2xH20+02 Before rejecting something out right you need to do more research becomme educated. Dont believe everything you read in the press dude, because they usally fuck information up to make a story. Ie " Man devises well thought out plan to design, build and fly a low cost manned rocket vehicle" Becomes " Toy inventor plans to launch himself in BACKYARD rocket" Dont believe the hype..
Your info is wrong check out www.xprize.org It has nothing to do with NASA first of all. Its 10 million dollars second of all. And thirdly it requires a rocket launch of 3 adults to 100km, with the ability to refurbish and relaunch the rocket within 3 days.
Off course the AST wont give him his licence they are Government department in place to serve the interest of large corporations...Just have a look at the unreasnable conditions they placed on CATS prise contestants.
You doubters are all a shame to the title NERDS.. Brian Walker is undertaking one of the most incredible and amazing flights since the Wright brothers. Its shame that you have all been fooled by the corrupt dealings of Governments with endless budgets to spend, pouring there money into massive corporations too glad to spend it. That is why rockets cost so much, if you where at all educated about the history of the modern rockets you would all know that they where developed from ICBMs. They where first designed in the 50s-60s using what was then state of the art materials and technologies, with no concern placed on cost. These technologies are now beyond redundant but still in use because the companies who produce them have there own senators in congress who make sure they always secure the next Government contract. It is for this reason no new companies can enter the market with simpler and more cost effective technologies, ( see the demise of Beal Aerospace the American Rocket Company etc ). Rockets are not some mystical high technology device, they are in fact simpler than an internal combustion engine. And have been designed, tested & refined for the last 50+ years, the problem is that we are still using 30 + year old technology because of the above stated political and financial pressures. Imagine if computers followed this suit we would still be using the 286?? I have been involved in several entrepreneurial rocket ventures, and the design of several rocket systems of various sizes. As well as having over 16 years first hand experience in experimental rocketry, and I can see that Brian's plan is quite solid. And the main reason is because it is simple, a ballistic flight to 30 kilometres in an unguided rocket vehicle. He is using the same type of propulsion that has been proven for many years to power drag cars, as well as established methods of composite airframe manufacturing for the vehicle. I draw your attention to the case of the Voyager aircraft that made history by flying the globe, it was built not by a large corporation but by one man Burt Rutan. He designed, tested and built it for under $7million. GE Aerospace cost model for the same project $700 million, did the voyager fall out of the sky because GE didn't build it for $700 million??? The lack of education in many of the replies here is obvious example " what about support infrastructure, and orbital calculations". First of all his not going into orbit it is a ballistic sub-orbital flight, effectively the same as flying a plane near vertical for a few minutes, in terms of infrastructure his design requires little as it is transported to launch site on a mobile launcher. Once again well proven and sound technology, also with today's computer power a couple of Pentium class computers would be all that is need to test and monitor vehicles systems. As he his vehicle is unguided it removes the need for expensive internal guidance navigation and control systems, which are behind most new launch vehicle failures ( see Ariane 5 first launch ). In fact when we strip it down to basic Brian Walker is launching himself in BIG MODEL ROCKET, and that is why he has as good a chance as anybody launching home made rocket at success. Some real imaginative guy quotes " I hear his got millions, why dosent he just pay the Russians", thats not his goal his goal is to do it by his own hands. Sure and why dont we just let Microsoft write all the worlds software, lets not be pioneers & find better or cheaper ways to things. Meanwhile the rich can go to space for the next 100years becasue nobody else is trying to make affordable space technology. It will be by the efforts of people such as Brian that you and I will get the opportunity to make this voyage, not by government or big business as they have already had 50 years to get us there and they are still no closer. Think about that next time before you so openly bag a pioneer.