Just $10M Keeping "Red Neck Rocket Scientist" From Reaching Space 121
McGruber writes "The Arizona Republic has an update on Morris Jarvis, a Project Manager at Intel who also happens to head Space Transport and Recovery (STAR) Systems, a commercial space-travel company, out of his east Mesa, Arizona home. Jarvis has built the Hermes, a prototype, proof-of-concept model of a space shuttle, that is 27 feet long with a 21-foot wingspan. He believes that if he were to receive $10 million today, he could have the first test launch in a year. Jarvis 'envisions two tour options for his completed Hermes. In the first, a high-altitude balloon will raise the Hermes to 100,000-plus feet, where customers can see the curvature of the Earth. The second is a rocket-powered option that will put customers in a suborbital trajectory where they can experience weightlessness.' According to the Silicon Valley Watcher, Morris likes to describe himself as the 'Red Neck Rocket Scientist.' (He was interviewed in this May 24, 2011 IntelFreePress Video posted at YouTube.)"
Re:There's a reason... (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... (Score:2, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, 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... (Score:4, 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.