Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Inventor to Launch Pop Bottle Rocket into Space

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Feb 18, 2008 02:22 PM
from the next-comes-the-lawn-chair-with-balloons dept.
It's funny. Laugh. Space
DrButts writes "An inventor in British Columbia wants to be the first to launch a pop bottle rocket into space. 'This could be impossible, but the CEO of AntiGravity Research already holds the altitude record for boosting an elongated plastic pop bottle — propelled by a bicycle pump, water and a bit of soap — into the air. Firing the ubiquitous, two-litre plastic container usually consigned to the recycle bin into space might create a whole new definition for space junk, but the dream keeps Schellenberg going.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Inventor to launch pop bottle rocket into space by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Inventor to Launch Pop Bottle Rocket into Space 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Volume (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Monday February 18 2008, @02:24PM (#22466370) Homepage Journal
    The sin qua non issue here is volume. TFA speaks of 'stretching' the bottles. If you are allowed to increase volume enough when stretching, then, yes, a coke bottle might make it into space. It requires stretching the bottle so that it's volume is several orders of magnitude larger than the original, then putting on lots of carbon fiber ( as per TFA ) on it.

    Since TFA speaks of A coke bottle, I assume we aren't allowed multi-staging. But some of the effects of staging could be achieved - I think - with different fluids. At the bottom would be a layer of mercury with some depleted uranium dissolved in it. Next is the water layer. Maybe the third layer would be a hydrocarbon of some sort ( perhaps chosen for it's ability to dissolve gasses under high pressure, thus using precious volume for both compressed air and reaction mass.

    Personally, I don't want to be anywhere near this contraption at liftoff, when it is spraying tons of toxic heavy metals all over. But I do want to see the video on youtube.
    • Excellent use of the Gmail "Word Of The Day"...

    • Re:Volume (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dunbal (464142) on Monday February 18 2008, @03:20PM (#22467050)
      Unless you mean longitudinal "stretching", I can imagine this fat, spherical bottle offering too much cross sectional area (and therefore drag) to be able to go any far. There's a reason rockets are the shape that they are. Dunno how far you can stretch a pop bottle along its length, though. I guess I'll leave that to the "real scientists", lol.

    • Re:Volume (Score:4, Informative)

      by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Monday February 18 2008, @03:53PM (#22467472) Journal
      From TFA:

      Based on that research, Schellenberg is now convinced that it will be possible to put a bottle rocket into orbit. In preparation, he's working on sending a modified two-stage rocket - reinforced with ultra-strong carbon-fibre and fuelled by liquid CO2 - up about five kilometres.

    • Re:Volume (Score:4, Informative)

      by sumdumass (711423) on Monday February 18 2008, @04:48PM (#22468042) Journal
      Wouldn't filling the bottle with hydrogen peroxide under pressure and expanded and then using some for of catalyst like Nickel to react with the peroxide work just effectively?

      I know theory and practice often make fun of each other, but I would think that he could use the same type of metrics but with a soft bladder or something separating the peroxide from the catalyst and held in place by pumping the pressure on the opposite side to equalize the effects of the peroxide. Liquid isn't really compressible but the bottle's expansion could be the pressure point. And once it is launched by traditional air or air-liquid launch, the pressure drops on one side allowing the peroxide to flow through then the heat generation could and pressure would hold it back but still allowing it to expand as it hits the catalyst and effectively creating a rocket engine.

      I don't know how much pressure could be harnessed this way but it is essentially the same concept of a jet pack. Except the weight to thrust ratio would be extremely different. You could end up with 4 or 5 pounds of fuel to a quarter pound object or to put it more excitingly, some older jetpacks or rocket belts generate about 185 lbs 280-300 lbs of thrust for over 21 seconds. In contrast and using some number conversions for impressively big numbers, that could be around 4800 onces of thrust for a 4-12 once object before fuel weight.

      Of course I could be off here a bit, and I don't know how to translate thrust and burn time to distance covered. I suspect that has to do a lot with the total weight and some way to account for the loss from fuel spent and specific thrust sizes and pulses and all that jazz. And I'm also not sure if this type of fuel would be effective at altitude. And while this isn't technically burning, it might not be what he is looking for.

    • Re:Volume (Score:4, Funny)

      by 3vi1 (544505) <evil_NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Monday February 18 2008, @07:53PM (#22469738) Homepage Journal
      >> At the bottom would be a layer of mercury with some depleted uranium dissolved in it. Next is the water layer.

      Is that before or after he dumps the Coke out?

  • Uh.... right. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt&lynx,bc,ca> on Monday February 18 2008, @02:24PM (#22466372) Journal
    Has he even broken Mach 1 yet?
    • He's from British Columbia... they don't need jet fuel to fly. Hell, they smoke anything out there... I even hear tell they smoke salmon.

      Seriously, though, I've met this guy before, and the definition of "space" might be a little loose, but crazy wins over reality, every time.

      • Re:Uh.... right. (Score:5, Informative)

        by rcw-work (30090) on Monday February 18 2008, @03:27PM (#22467168)

        There's actually not much in the way of a rule that says something going into orbit has to reach 'escape velocity'.

        No, but you have to get almost there. Low Earth Orbit is 7.8km/s, escape velocity is 11.2km/s. In addition, any non-escape ballistic trajectory that starts from the earth will form an ellipse that will eventually intersect the earth, meaning your rocket must accelerate sideways a fair bit once it's up there.

        You need much less speed to merely reach space and fall back down, but the article clearly said 'orbit'.

          • Re:Uh.... right. (Score:4, Informative)

            by cuantar (897695) on Monday February 18 2008, @05:54PM (#22468638) Homepage
            But when you finally got into space, you'd be (very nearly) moving at escape velocity. That's how we define escape velocity, after all: it's the speed required to overcome the earth's gravitational attraction. The difference between your actual speed and escape velocity will be negligible once you're far enough away, but you have to get there or you can't escape. It's easy to show mathematically.

      • Re:Uh.... right. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Monday February 18 2008, @03:30PM (#22467194) Journal

        And for that matter, there's nothing at least in the summary that says anything about orbit... just space. Technically, that refers to an altitude, not a velocity. Yeah, something launched would fall back down to earth if it didn't have enough momentum to break out of the Earth's gravity well, but that doesn't mean such an object didn't reach space, at least by the traditional definition thereof.

  • But what if... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Monday February 18 2008, @02:25PM (#22466388) Homepage
    What if the bottle rocket eventually encounters an advanced civilization, who enhance it and sent it back to Earth on a mission of death and destruction? Hasn't this fool learned anything from what happened to Voyager/VGER?
  • he could get $2 billion for this project from the pentagon if he words the application right and he donates $10K to his senator's reelection fund

  • Just needs... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lobiusmoop (305328) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:29PM (#22466430) Homepage
    a Coke-and-Mentos second-stage booster and he should be set.
  • He's not using any mentos at all.

  • Hey, 200 Meters ain't bad for a pop bottle rocket! (Score:5, Informative)

    by aarku (151823) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:31PM (#22466470) Journal
    Only 79.8 km (out of 80...) left to go, if you take the lowest recognized definition of outer space.

    • Re:Hey, 200 Meters ain't bad for a pop bottle rock (Score:5, Interesting)

      by srussia (884021) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:57PM (#22466790)

      Only 79.8 km (out of 80...) left to go, if you take the lowest recognized definition of outer space.
      Heck, I've done 200m with a butane canister with the bottom cut out (the seamless top withstands the pressure wave). I punch a hole on top, jam a firecracker inside (mainly just around 10g powdered aluminum--otherwise known as a "five-star") with the fuse sticking out the top and launch it from a pan filled with water. This was at age 10. The best aspects of this technique were virtually silent detonation (just water splashing out of the pan) and extremely homogeneous thrust (the thing went straight up, eventually landing just a few meters beyond launch point).

  • Extrapolating the data points... (Score:5, Funny)

    by giminy (94188) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:32PM (#22466500) Homepage Journal
    Schellenberg's two-stage model is easily capable of reaching altitudes of well over 200 metres.

    Several years ago, one of his "toy" rockets - actually a Kevlar-reinforced, experimental, single-stage missile pressurized with compressed nitrogen and packing high-tech instruments - flew to just under 379 metres.

    Based on that research, Schellenberg is now convinced that it will be possible to put a bottle rocket into orbit.

    Wow, 379 meters. With just a few more improvements, he could eek out the other 159,621 meters to Low Earth Orbit with no problem!

    Reid

  • I can hear Nasa now (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frigga's Ring (1044024) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:33PM (#22466506)
    We don't dump our satellites in your recycling bin, please don't shoot your pop bottles into our space.

    • Re:I can hear Nasa now (Score:5, Informative)

      by vux984 (928602) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:51PM (#22466728)
      We don't dump our satellites in your recycling bin, please don't shoot your pop bottles into our space.

      Nah, putting them in the recyling bin would be far too orderly, NASA has the military shoot them down with missiles and lets God sort out where the pieces end up.

      Maybe we should combine our desires and use pop bottles to take out your failing satellites. Of course then the military doesn't get to use their toys... so that won't work.

  • Quote from the man. (Score:5, Funny)

    by gardyloo (512791) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:34PM (#22466524)

    "I got side tracked off what I should have been doing, which is electrical engineering," said the red-headed, 49-year-old father of five.
    Yeah, you're letting down slashdotters everywhere by making children.

    • Re:Quote from the man. (Score:4, Funny)

      by mikiN (75494) on Monday February 18 2008, @03:55PM (#22467494)
      Many Slashdotters don't often $ make children, they fork() parent processes.

      Perhaps managing IPC and dealing with zombies comes more naturally to them than dealing with tantrums and changing diapers.

  • Ony the facts could stop this intrepid adventurer! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:36PM (#22466534)
    If you dropped a pop bottle onto Earth from a great height, say a million miles, it would splat (air resistance excluded) at about 25,000 MPH. Seven miles per second. Analogously, if you wanted to reverse the course of the pop bottle, you'd have to launch it from the Earth's surface at a similar speed. Now IIRC at about Mach 1.5, aluminum begins to soften. I suspect the plastic in a pop bottle melts at a somewhat lower temperature. So even if you could get enough dry ice or Mentos to launch the bottle at seven miles per second, it would probably melt in about two seconds. Not to mention that air resistance would slow it down considerably on its upward journey, so it's unlikely to have enough speed for the long run.

    • Re:Ony the facts could stop this intrepid adventur (Score:5, Informative)

      by MeBot (943893) on Monday February 18 2008, @03:05PM (#22466870)
      You're calculating the speed it would need to start at if all thrust were exerted at ground level and it had to coast up to space (again excluding air resistance). If on the other hand you apply thrust throughout the flight, space can be achieved without ever approaching 25,000 MPH. For instance, Space Ship One never flew 25,000 MPH yet it made it to space.

      Also note that I don't believe he'll make it either, and I've always considered 80km to not really be space flight. Just pointing out that the facts you mentioned won't necessarily be the ones that stop the adventure.

  • MythBusters . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:43PM (#22466622)
    He needs to get with the mythbusters team, tie five bottles together and see if they can life Jamie off the ground.

  • I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by biased_estimator (1222498) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:45PM (#22466648)
    IMHO once you start reinforcing it with kevlar it ceases to be a pop bottle. At least I've never drank soda out of such a thing before...

  • His company motto says it all (Score:5, Funny)

    by damn_registrars (1103043) on Monday February 18 2008, @02:55PM (#22466766) Journal

    AntiGravity's motto is: "Ongoing research projects of little or no gravity."

    (Straight from TFA...)

  • http://antigravityresearch.com/ (Score:4, Informative)

    by fyoder (857358) on Monday February 18 2008, @03:22PM (#22467092) Homepage Journal
    http://antigravityresearch.com/ [antigravityresearch.com]

    The guy's web site. I did a google search on "Mr Widget" bottle rocket and the results were all from news sites to do with this story. Searching on antigravity research was better.

  • Mythbusters tried this... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gillbates (106458) on Monday February 18 2008, @04:01PM (#22467562) Homepage Journal

    In one of their recent episodes, Mythbusters researched using compressed air and water "bottle rockets". The highest flight to date of a compressed air and water rocket was about 500 meters, IIRC. And it was made from materials far stronger than a 2 liter bottle.

    The fundamental problem, as Mythbusters showed, is that a 2 liter bottle just can't hold enough pressure for the impulse necessary to put the bottle into orbit.

    Nice dream, though.

    • Re:Mythbusters tried this... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Scrameustache (459504) on Monday February 18 2008, @04:20PM (#22467746) Homepage Journal

      In one of their recent episodes, Mythbusters researched using compressed air and water "bottle rockets". The highest flight to date of a compressed air and water rocket was about 500 meters, IIRC. And it was made from materials far stronger than a 2 liter bottle.
      The fundamental problem, as Mythbusters showed, is that a 2 liter bottle just can't hold enough pressure for the impulse necessary to put the bottle into orbit.
      Nice dream, though.

      Just because Adam and Jamie can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.
      As far as the "fuel" limits, is there a rule that says he can't launch it out of a canon before releasing the pressure? Or use multiple stages? I see he sells a two-stage bottle rocket...

  • Pop? Soda? Pop? Coke? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ettlz (639203) on Monday February 18 2008, @04:55PM (#22468126) Homepage Journal

    "It's 'soda', not 'pop'."

    "It's 'coke', not 'pop'."

    "It's 'pop', not 'soda' or 'coke'."

    Fuck you lot, it's 'fizzy drink' and you know it.

  • So then, really... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tarlus (1000874) on Monday February 18 2008, @05:33PM (#22468428)
    "Inventor to Attempt to Launch Pop Bottle Rocket into Space."
    That makes more sense.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.