Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Non-commercial Manned Rocket Test (pre1) 126

Posted by Hemos from the foom-into-space dept.
comcn writes "The BBC have an article about an amateur "rocketeer" trying to send himself into space. After the £7m prize was announced for the first non-commercial person to get into space, it seems there are now several people aiming to win it. Cool."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Non-commercial Manned Rocket Test (pre1) More

Non-commercial Manned Rocket Test (pre1)

Comments Filter:

  • This guy... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Griim ( 8798 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:05PM (#2601255) Homepage
    ...is going to get the title Best Darwin Award Ever.
    • Agreed!

    • Re:This guy... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:16PM (#2601304)
      "...is going to get the title Best Darwin Award Ever."

      I hate the so-called "Darwin Awards" for their "HA-HA I'm *so* much smarter than these (often drunken) fools HA-HA"-attitude even though I generally like nasty humor, but I despise the attitude displayed in the above post even more. If the Wright who flew the first plane would have crashed and died, and you would have been there, would you have gloated "It's a good thing that imbecile cleansed himself from the gene pool"? I don't know how well this person has planned his rocket trip or even if he's sane, but I applaud him at attempting something I wouldn't have the guts to do.

      Currently (about two nanoseconds after the story was posted) the above post has 3 +funnies, I hope that it goes down to -1 troll. But it probably won't, since joking about risky attempts that push the limits of human experience in the vein "HA-HA this idiot is gonna die HA-HA" is very, very popular on Slashdot. :-(

      • It's funny because it's so unrealistic. He isn't going to make it into space unless he happens to have a spare million or two tucked away - just for the fuel needed, let alone for the development and construction. If he does try it I just hope he has life insurance.
      • Shade put it best. I'm not actually hoping the guy dies. I'm betting when it comes down to the wire, he's not going to actually go through with it, because he just doesn't have the abilities. I've seen articles on this guy before, and he's somewhat of a shyster. Hell, he's only gotten up to 5,000 feet! I mean, sure, that's better than nothing, but there's no way he's going to hit the second and third stages of an honest-to-goodnes all-growed-up vehicle launch! Nice trolling yourself, btw.
      • When the Wright Brothers flew no one had flown before. We've gone into space already. We know how difficult it is. As someone has already pointed out - this IS rocket science!
        The reason why you'd not have the guts to do it is because it is staggeringly dangerous and almost certainly going to end with the loss of the pilot's life or, if they are very lucky, severe injury.
        NASA, for all their immense expertise and money, couldn't stop people from dying in their space program so what chances do you give an amateur effort?
        It only takes a little comparison to real space programs to see that what they are doing is sheer lunacy. On the same day someone launched a more powerful rocket motor and said they wanted to put up satellites, not passengers. Why? They needed to prove they were reliable, then would make money from satellite launches. That's sensible.
        What is not sensible (and what brings some people out in giggles) is: "Thursday's blast-off at Morecambe Bay would pave the way for a manned launch next year, Mr Bennett said."
        I am not laughing, just sad.
      • Well said, and I agree with you.

        But on the other hand, I still find it amusing that these (often drunken fools) tend to find hilarious ways to clense the so-called gene pool.

        I say this, remembering the guy who won one year for replacing a blown fuse in his truck with a bullet. Seems to me the bullet got hot and subsequently ignited the gunpowder inside, firing a searing hot piece of lead into his balls, causing him to swerve off a bridge.

        I'm not sure I'd call this sort of thing pushing the human experience. I can't imagine that any intelligent non-insane red-blooded male with an I.Q. above sub-terranian levels would try that one out, drunk or sober.

        While I hate to see anyone pay the ultimate price due to complete idiocy, that story still makes me laugh my ass off. And it's been a few years.

    • Re:This guy... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TMacPhail ( 519256 )
      That would only be a darwain award if he did not actually make it to space. If he did make it I would not consider the way he killed himself stupid at all. He managed to get into space as somewhat of an amature. That is no small acomplishment. I still tend to agree with you just becasue it is so funny yet also true.
    • Homer: "I'm like that guy who single handedly built the rocket and flew to the moon, what was his name?... Apollo Creed??
    • ...is really VERY cool. You should see the way in which ITN 'reported' this story on their Evening News show. The put it in the the HILARIOUS '...and finally' slot - basically treating the whole thing as a joke. The two (massively overpaid) presenters - no, they're NOT journalists - were laughing when they went back to the studio. W A N K E R S.
  • I am from space, I have already been there. I was born there. I tried telling them that but they still wouldn't give me my money.
  • So these people can win 7 million pounds as long as they aren't doing it for the benefit of earning money, yet they started work once the prize was offered?

    That kindof strikes me as saying "I'll offer $10,000 to anyone who'll say no to $10,000!", and then having several people coming up to give it a shot.
    • Mr Bennett, on the other hand, wants to win the $10m (£7m) X-Prize. This award, from a US foundation, will go to the first
      non-governmental outfit to put people on a rocket 100 kilometres (62 miles) above the Earth.
      Looks like a mistake by the poster.
  • Cool until people hurt themselves or others. I hope there is staff to test and evaulate the equpitment before it gets to the 'launch site'

  • 85%? (Score:2, Funny)

    by rde ( 17364 )
    The rocketeer said the launch was 85% successful.

    Good. So he'll come back safely; just without a head.
    • Does he really want to come back?

      He expected his rocket to get to 1800 m. It reached 1525 m and two of the three parachutes became entangled.

      Well, 1525/1800 = 84.7%. He said that the launch was 85% successfull, so he doesn't give a dam about the parachutes (actually, he gives 0.3%).
      • Hey, the launch was 85% successful (rounded to nearest integer). The landing on the other hand was only 33% successful, given that one out of three parachutes worked...

  • It's all about da Benjamins, baby... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Knunov ( 158076 ) <eat@my.ass> on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:16PM (#2601301) Homepage
    From the article:

    "Mr Bennett...wants to win the $10m...X-Prize. This award...will go to the first non-governmental outfit to put people on a rocket...62 miles...above the Earth...flying twice within a two-week period...[and]...also carry passengers."

    In other news:

    "A group of loosely organized computer enthusiasts from the website Slashdot [slashdot.org] have developed a space vehicle called the "Leech".

    This craft is essentially a septic tank with enormous velcro straps. They have apparently bribed a NASA engineer with a $1m payday if he lets them piggyback on the space shuttle.

    A model rocket engine has been attached to the rear of he septic tank because hey, rules are rules.

    Knunov

  • NASA out of business? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mind21_98 ( 18647 )
    If this does succeed, does that mean NASA will die? Since private companies would be able to do it more efficently than them? Or is there still a use for them?
    • NASA out of business?! Impossible... After commercial space flight is proved pratical, I see NASA moving from space-flight to space-regulation, and becoming exactly like the FAA. Rescritions, laws, and regulations would soon be rampant, and nobody could build or launch anything without heavy government influence and a huge wad of cash.

    • Stop it.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sinfamous ( 522772 )
      One man shooting himself into outer space wouldn't "kill NASA". Building space stations, going to the moon, getting rovers on Mars...etc is what the NASA teams have done.

      People comparing this over-optimistic competition (I'm being generous in my choice of adjectives...it's a holiday) to feats achieved by NASA's scientists do nothing but belittle some of the finest minds in the world.

    • Re:NASA out of business? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @05:29PM (#2601569) Homepage
      NASA aren't in business. Atleast they aren't supposed to be. But not even billionaires seem to be able to get into the launch business due to NASA. Check out what Mr. Beal said [bealaerospace.com] when he left the launch platform business. But the competition from the Russians and other players is immense (they can launch for 1/4 the price of NASA), and NASA shows no sign of being able to compete, and are falling behind the price curve at a tremendous rate.

      NASA's proportion of the space pie is shrinking- commercial operators, some of them NASA contractors are growing, and NASA can't grow due to it's fixed budget from the government- it's actually part of the government. That's a good thing in fact. Companies are supposed to grow, Governments can only grow by increasing taxation.

      NASA should stick to what it's good at, exploration, not commercial launching.
      • They'd just have to specialize. I mean even if it got really cheap to launch sats into space, who can go up there and repair them, or bring them back? NASA. Plus a lot of the stuff NASA does, no one with a profit motive would do. i.e. Hubble and any other experiements.

  • Link (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Fenresulven ( 516459 )
    Link: Starchaser [starchaser.co.uk] He might just do it, maybe. I'll give him a 1/2 chance of doing it within 2010.

  • Don't forget Brian Walker (Score:4, Informative)

    by ruszka ( 456169 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:22PM (#2601326)
    Brian Walker is an American who has had a lifelong dream of going into space. He's been working for a long time now to get there on his own. His website is here [rocketguy.com]. His story is very interesting considering what all he's gone through to get this far. His launch date is set for May of 2002.

  • Is this guy serious? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shade, The ( 252176 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:25PM (#2601335) Homepage

    It's one thing to launch an 11m rocket some 5000ft, it's quite another to build a functioning spacecraft!

    At the very minimum it would have to carry a ton of payload; most probably quite a bit more. To get an idea of the kinds of equipment involved, this link [af.mil] on the Delta II provides a good overview of the kind of sheer power and equipment needed to put even a relatively small 5 ton payload into space.

    Even the new X-34 [nasa.gov] being developed by NASA for cheaper space-flight still estimates a $500'000 cost per launch, and that's not even including the construction costs!

    That an amateur could attempt this at all is ridiculous, let alone be the first non-governmental outfit to achieve this. You have to wonder what's going on in this guy's head.

    • >Even the new X-34 [nasa.gov] being developed by NASA for cheaper space-flight still estimates a $500'000 cost per launch...
      >...That an amateur could attempt this at all is ridiculous, let alone be the first non-governmental outfit to achieve this.

      I agree. For any commercial or private organisation to be as expensive as NASA, they'd be laughed out of court.
    • That's the entire point of this contest. To see if an amateur can find a way to get to space, which will in all likelyhood be significantly cheaper (and with a quicker turn-around) then the Government has been able to do.

      It may be a long-shot, but hey, if nobody can do it, then they've lost nothing. If someone can, then they've found a cheaper, faster way into space... easily worth the ten million dollar prize.

    • "Into space" != "into orbit". (Score:5, Informative)

      by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @08:57PM (#2602126)
      It's one thing to launch an 11m rocket some 5000ft, it's quite another to build a functioning spacecraft!

      At the very minimum it would have to carry a ton of payload; most probably quite a bit more. To get an idea of the kinds of equipment involved, this link [af.mil] on the Delta II provides a good overview of the kind of sheer power and equipment needed to put even a relatively small 5 ton payload into space.

      It turns out that it's a lot easier than you think to build an X-Prize-winning rocket.

      The Delta rockets and other commercial launch vehicles need to get an object into _orbit_. This takes about 30 MJ/kg (the binding energy for LEO), or about 8 km/sec delta-V.

      Satisfying the X prize only requires sending a payload up to 100 km. It doesn't have to stay there. This only takes about 1 MJ/kg (1.0e5 metres times about 10 m/sec^2). This corresponds to a delta-V of about 1.4 km/sec. This is much, much easier to achieve.

      The reason why this is *much* easier (or more accurately, why anything higher than 2-3 km/sec is *really* hard), is that when the delta-V of your rocket is larger than your exhaust velocity, the amount of fuel needed to give that delta-V to a fixed amount of payload starts growing exponentially (it's roughly linear below this threshold). Typical specific impulses for rocket fuels are in the 2000-3000 N*s/kg range, corresponding to exhaust velocities of 2-3 km/sec. So, anything below about 2 km/sec can be accomplished with relative ease, while anything above about 4 km/sec requires a rocket that's mostly fuel (and probably multi-stage, unless you have extremely strong and light materials).

      In summary, building a rocket that can lift a payload into a sub-orbital trajectory that tops out at 100 km is certainly within reach of a small group's resources.

      [The real problem will be finding someone willing to pay for it. You can't lift payloads into orbit with this rocket, and cost of developing the rocket will probably be more than you'd get from the X-Prize.]
      • Ok, I stand corrected. :)
      • That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me! The Delta II site has the following info on it's capabilities:

        The Delta II can carry payloads into near-earth orbits (approximately 100 nautical miles [160 kilometers] in space). It can lift up to 11,100 pounds (4,995 kilograms) into a 28-degree circular near-earth orbit and up to 8,420 pounds (3,789 kilograms) into a 90-degree polar near-earth orbit. The Delta II also can carry up to 4,010 pounds (1,804.5 kilograms) into geo-transfer orbit (approximately 12,000 miles (19,200 kilometers)) and up to 2,000 pounds (909 kilograms) into geosynchronous orbit (approximately 22,000 miles (35,200 kilometers)).

        The near earth orbit of 162Km isn't so much more than the X-prize 100Km, and as the Delta II numbers indicate it gets easier to go further the higher you get.

        Secondly the Delta II lifts a pretty hefty payload, whereas I assume there'd at least be some sort of commerical market for putting much lighter payloads into near earth orbit.
        • That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me! The Delta II site has the following info on it's capabilities:
          ...
          The near earth orbit of 162Km isn't so much more than the X-prize 100Km

          The difference is that the Delta doesn't just send things up to 162 km - it puts them in orbit.

          To just send something up to 162 km, you'd just fire it straight up at a moderate speed. I'll fall right back down to earth again after reaching the target height.

          To get something into orbit, you have to fire it mostly *sideways*, so that when it falls back to earth, it misses the planet (most basic explanation). The payload has to be moving a *heck* of a lot faster to do this. That's the difference between a sub-orbital and orbital trajectory, even if they reach the same altitude.
          • OK, thanks! I see what you mean.

            I wonder if there'd be any benefit to going straight up and then at the right time (before you start falling back) have a smaller or different type motor shoot you "sideways" to put you in orbit?

  • Not almost there (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KarmaBlackballed ( 222917 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:28PM (#2601343) Homepage Journal
    To win you need to fly up 100000m. This rocket flew 5000m and the recovery system failed. That 95% remaining height is a big deal and the recovery from that height is going to be a real b*tch. It is not just a matter of putting more fuel in the rocket and stratospheric parachuting is not like the usual parachute descent.

    This looks like a fund raising media event more than proof of anything that will win the prize within a year. Still, this is cool.
    • I agree, especially about the missing 95% (Not Quite Peanuts TM) - OTOH, balancing rocket of that size on a pillar of fire for more than a kilometer is quite a feat in itself. The first time I saw this guy's site, I thought he was a complete piss-artist ... but maybe he can make it after all.

      ... sure wish him the best of luck

    • It was 5000' not 5000m. Say! Do you work for NASA by any chance? :^)

      Of course that makes the remaining job even harder. What he's got now is just a big model rocket.
  • The BBC [bbc.co.uk] also reports that another group have put a 5.4m rocket 700ft into the air [bbc.co.uk]. From what it seems these people have a better chance of putting things into space, since they already hold the UK record for the highest amateur rocket. (Anybody know what the highest a rocket has gone in the USA?)

    I would say they have a better chance of getting things into space. Their record rocket went 35,00ft into the air, plus they have developed their own engine. Their fuel is supposed to be efficient - its got nitrous oxide in it! (ok i don't know what this really would mean but after watching "The Fast and the Furious" it just seems cool). Plus their ambitions seems to be getting sattelites and not people into space - more readily acheiveable IMHO.

    • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)

      by NeoTron ( 6020 ) <kevin@NoSPAM.scarygliders.net> on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:42PM (#2601405) Homepage
      Yes, this group is called MARS - Middlesex Advanced Rocketry Society, of which I am one of the Flight Crew.

      Bennet is basically a big joke in the UK, he has got all rocketry groups banned from using military bases to test rockets from, and one of his earlier rocket escapades burned a substantial part of moorland in Dartmoor.

      Bennets rocket is nothing more than a scaled-up HPR (High Power Rocket) vehicle, and is nothing more exciting than is flown by many HPR enthusiasts here in the UK and the US.

      Our most recent success flew last weekend - it's a true and proper amateur rocket utilising our new Hybrid rocket motor, quite possibly the most powerfull amateur hybrid motor flown anywhere in the world :)

      Go to http://www.mars.org.uk for more details.

      Regards

      Kevin Cave.
      • What is the difference between HPR and your type of rocket?
        • 99% of the time HPR rockets come in kits, although you an custom build them. Also, the rocket motors themselves are commercially made, whereas our motor was completely designed from the bottom up and works in a completely different way - we niject Nitrous oxide through basically a long cylinder of plastic, which has been drilled through to make a hole - when this is ignited the NOx decomposes into Nitrogen and Oxygen, supplying the required Oxygen necessary to burn the plastic, hence creating the high speed, high pressure gas needed to create thrust - basically one mean mutha of a rocket motor :)

          Hope this helps :)

          Kev.
          • Thanks! What temperatures and what exhaust velocity does your exhaust gas reach ? Why do you not use LOX instead of NOX ?

            I surfed your site for several hours now, it's great! A pity that I don't live in the UK.
    • heh
      "Drag racers use rocket fuel to get that exra push."
      "space shuttles use Drag racer fuel to get that extra push."
    • Why does everyone seem so surprised that the British can get rockets into space? Hell, if we can do it down here (land of Oz), then surely they can do it. Hell, they could probably bring it down here and launch three times as many with the same amount of money (7 mil UK is almost same as $19 mil AUS).

      Damn... with brains like mine, I could enter this thing...

      --

  • All the Karma Whoring Details (Score:3, Informative)

    by 1alpha7 ( 192745 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:36PM (#2601389) Homepage

    For those of you interested in Darwin Awards [darwinawards.com], here is the X-Prize site [xprize.org]. Here is Robert A. Braeunig's [commkey.net] page on how to do it, orbital mechanics and the like. Space.com [space.com] usually carries the X-prize news. For those of you wondering about the difference between an Ariane and a Proteus, here is the glossary [spacefuture.com]

    1Alpha7

  • Would the 7 m even cover what it costs to make a rocket ship, fuel it, launch it into space and bring it back?

  • 1500 meters not even close to space. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by searleb ( 168974 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:40PM (#2601403) Homepage
    1500 meters is dramatically different than the 100 kilometer reward and still significantly less than even Brian Walker's [rocketguy.com] goal of 30 km. Even commercial airliners fly at approximately 9000 meters.

    Still, it's nice to see that the guy got things off the ground and was able to rescue (and reuse?) some of the parts at the same time.

  • Old stuff... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by chhamilton ( 264664 )

    After the £7m prize was announced for the first non-commercial person to get into space, it seems there are now several people aiming to win it. Cool.

    You make it seem like a new prize... this article is just talking about the same old X-Prize [xprize.org], which has been around since 1996. In fact, almost a year ago there was an article in the BBC discussing several of the contenders, and Bennett was generally talked about as being a crazy risk-taker, and least likely to win. Another (closer to home) competitor is toy-inventor Brian Walker (aka Rocket Guy [rocketguy.com], about whom there was a Slashdot article, but I can't find it as Slashdot's search is down), as well as famous aircraft designer Bert Rutan and his company Scaled Composites [scaled.com].

    There are several other contenders, and lots of cool animations and info to be found at the X-Prize homepage.

  • to the moon!

    Average guys bumbling around in space, making all kinds of amusing [albeit costly and dangerous] mistakes... sounds interesting. But isn't there already something like this?



    Average Slobs Get Chance At Space [ridiculopathy.com]


    "Rocket Scientist" no longer conotes incredible intelligence [ridiculopathy.com]

  • Commercial Rocketry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LazyDawg ( 519783 ) <<lazydawg> <at> <hotmail.com>> on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:59PM (#2601461) Homepage
    If only NASA would act as a testbed facility, getting through the FAA red-tape with homebrew rockets instead of laughing at them and generally ignoring the X-prize type competitions.

    Then I'd be a lot less worried about these amateurs strapping bombs to their behinds and vying for orbit. After a few failed launches, new laws will be implemented world-wide "for our protection" that prevent anyone but registered governmental space agencies from launching manned missions, and commercial spaceflight will be relegated to satellites and probes forever.
    • After a few failed launches, new laws will be implemented world-wide "for our protection" that prevent anyone but registered governmental space agencies from launching manned missions, and commercial spaceflight will be relegated to satellites and probes forever.

      Actually, there are existing international law, to which I am pretty sure the US has signed up, which make the Government of countries responsible for any mishaps which result from spaceflight. ie, you launch a rocket which prangs some camel in the middle of a desert, and the camels owner (or more likely, his Government) will come after your Government who is then quite likely to want to have a word in your ear about it. This is one of the reasons why totally commercial rocket launches have been a rarity, government bodies like the CAA, FAA, etc, do control what is going to be launched.

      (Normal rules apply, IANAL, you are at risk of being locked away and forgotten about if you prang the ISS with your brand new home brew launch vehicle etc)
  • When it is possible for some british bloke to build his own rocket and fly into space, evil terrorist might be able to build their own rockets and fly into space, too.
    Such sick evilmen might attack commucinations satellites and bring down the whole internet in no time.
    There are of course some ocean cables but we all know that these are not very reliable due to the sharks. In fact there has evoled a new shark species which can stand very high pessure just the nibble at ocean cables and make them break.
    And there is also the possibility that evil terrorist might fall down from space onto your head !!!
    • I think the security services do strict checks on this kind of thing. I was watching on TV the other day a programme about amateur (if such a thing exists) rocketry. Different clubs were trying to compete in an amateur competition on rocketry.

      However the knowledge needed to actually do rocketry was so specialised that the FBI did background checks on everybody wanting to even join one of these clubs, in case they were there to steal information on rockets. According to the programme (as far as i remember) from a rocket, you could relatively easily then modify a rocket to become a missile, a missile being a guided rocket in this case. The problem is not flying into space - its basically home-brew missiles aimed at anything and everything.
    • Such sick evilmen might attack commucinations satellites and bring down the whole internet in no time.
      I know this is a joke but it raises a point made in a New Scientist article this year called "The Heavens At War" (Sorry, no link). You don't need much of a rocket to take down a satellite. All you need is the ability to deposit lots of hard objects in the satellites path. Ball bearings would do. The satellite flys into them with the combined speed of both (if they are going opposite directions). This puts puts the impact at about 14km/s. Ouch!

      According to the article, dozens of countries are capable of firing this 21st century flak.

      More can be found at the authors site [jamesoberg.com].

    • We need a new moderation catagory.

      Steve M

  • John's the man (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Docrates ( 148350 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @05:05PM (#2601483) Homepage
    The BBC and CNN [cnn.com] do it again. They oversimplify matters so that they sound like better news than they actually are, in order to satisfy their increasing market of people whose IQ is slightly lower than their shoes size. At least this article didn't twist the facts like the BBC has beeng doing during the last few months (I still can't figure out why, and the whistle has been blown broadly).

    I'm pretty sure this guy is running low on cash so he hurried up this test in order to get some media attention that would help him get some more funds. It doesn't really matter really, since I already know who's goign to win. That will be Armadillo Aerospace [armadilloaerospace.com]

    They had a crash a few months ago and have recovered very well. their plans are the opposite from what most of the other contestant's are doing. They're working on a design that revolves around the ability to seat people on it, instead of trying to get higher than anyone and then picking up the parts. Actually, now that I think of it, I don't even think they're doing this for the prize, which makes them even better candidates.

    Of course, now I am also oversimplifying things, but at least I don't make money doing it, so I encourage you to go to John Carmak's site and check out the logs. Maybe someone here can help out with those Windows ME features he's been having problems with (check out the last few log entries)
    • You've gotta be kidding about Armadillo Aerospace?! It least this guy has got his rocket up to a respectable height. Carmack et al are still hopping about on the ground like a TM-er trying to fly or a crippled frog!

  • Hey, it works. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by imrdkl ( 302224 )
    At least the thing got off the ground. Remember the old B&W movies (american and german rocketeers) where there are dozens of launches where the rocket falls over and spins crazily on the ground, completely destroying the launch site? Or what about when it just gets off the ground, and then stalls back into an inferno?

  • davinci project (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    see:

    http://www.xprize.org/~Xprize/teams/davinci/inde x. shtml

    the site also has links to other teams

    tres cool!

  • Armadillo Aerospace (Score:3, Informative)

    by tjackson ( 50499 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @05:19PM (#2601535) Journal

    How can you forget about Armadillo Aerospace? You might know the name of one of the members of the team: John Carmack [slashdot.org]. They are very serious. They have a few flight test videos, and they have a few prototypes that could carry a person (Though that spot was filled by a punching bag for testing purposes).

    Check out:

    Armadillo Aerospace [armadilloaerospace.com]

    Comment [slashdot.org] by JC about his rockets (Hydrogen Peroxide-based, by the way).

    Their demonstration video [armadilloaerospace.com](quite impressive).

    • From the Nov. 17 update:

      Microsoft changed the behavior of the serial DTR line with windows ME, where previously it was off when not in use, but now it stays on from the time you boot

      John is using Windows ME to control the rocket??????

      Some of the video looks just like the old NASA films, wheeee!... crash!, whee.. crash!, tip..crash! etc.

  • Don`t Hold Your Breath... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I remember hearing that Steve Bennett built the capsule of the rocket from cement mixer parts, which is uncanny because he will be shitting bricks when he tries to launch himself into space.
  • This [bbc.co.uk] previous article from the BBC describes Mr. Bennett's lunacy a bit more clearly.

    He's not going to win the X-Prize.
    • Oh, and here's another classic quote:

      "We are not planning any tests such as wind tunnel or vibration tests before we launch it. That is what the test flight is for."

      I wonder if he'll apply the same principal on *his* first trip inside?
  • Doing all this for a $10m payoff is non-commercial?
  • Decimal is the cause of so many problems with NASA. An individual using binary/hexadecimal would have an advantage.
  • His launch may be coming soon... although I've been following his site for more than a year and he's slipped the date some in the past. This was posted on Slashdot quite a while ago.
  • it was going to say "Thunderbirds are GO!" - but, dag nab it - one of these critters is actually NAMED "Thunderbird".

    These run the gamut from "It's hard to imagine betting against Burt Rutan" to John Candy's old "that blowed up REAL good!"

    One or two of them is simply missing "ACME Corporation" painted on the side...

    I'll be the first to cheer if someone figures out how to do this reliably and cheaply. But you'd think this roster would have fewer - um - "outliers". The plane-to-rocket transition seems to be the favorite approach - on the other hand - MacCready et. al. didn't win the Kremer prizes by thinking the same as the other teams.

    Gotta love the flying saucer from Oregon (by the way - we've all spent 5 minntes on the ROTOR ride (big salad spinner) at the county fair - can you imagine the aliens getting out of a spinning saucer after a multiyear trip? "Klaatu! Gort barada nik- URRRRRRRRRP!!!!! RAAAAAAAAALPH!!! Oh God...WOOOOOOOOOOOF!!! Klaatu - kill me now!")

    This has to be the ultimate Big Comp for most of these folks. A copy of Strata 3D, a few glam shots in front of someone else's cool plane that ain't going to space? Cute. Dangerous. Naiive. Load people into a rocket that's literally floating in the ocean? You can't load a cup full of coffee in 2ft seas - so why give up the stability of land?

    Oh well - we weren't going to have another great meteor storm for a while - this'll have to do.
  • Bennet is a joke - he's no closer to space than I am - he's just launching rockets on commercially available model rocket motors. Check out my website [rocketclub.org] for more models :-)

    Seriously this guy is most famous for getting UK model rocket enthusiasts banned from launching on government land because he torched acres of firing range a few years ago.

  • phaeton sez: (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hey, i read that article over kinda quick. I don't think it placed any limitations on *how much* of your body you catapult into space. Does it have to be complete or in one piece?
  • "And all this science, I don't understand...
    It's just my job, five days a week."

    Someone earlier said that we shouldn't poo-poo this guy's dream. More has been done for humanity by the "single genius" (or madman) than has been done by governments. All the important inventions have been done by single people. The horse collar (don't laugh, it made moving things easier). The concept of interchangable parts (sam colt - our society is based on his idea). The assembly line. AC electricity (thank you Tesla!). radio. airplanes. Maybe he'll die...maybe he will. Or maybe he'll succeed. Or maybe he'll die and his death will spark someone else to fix his problems and succeed.

    But here's what troubles me:
    to achieve orbit requires alot of energy. ALOT. I remember a chinese rocket that went squirrly 2 seconds after ignition, flew 20 miles across the hills and blew up a whole village. I remember several sattelites that were rendered useless because they were hit by a 25,000 KPH !_PAINT_FLECK_! Is this guy putting a rocket into orbit, or is he putting a big piece of flying-death-junk into orbit that future space missions will be endangered by. Sure - ONE piece of flying junk is not so bad. But what if this becomes a big fad...and there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of flying death junk orbiting the earth?
  • I read somewhere that the boosters are being supplied by ACME and have been extensively tested by Wyle E. Coyote.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close