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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Amateur Rocket Heads Into Space 244

Posted by Hemos from the fly-me-to-the-moon dept.
scubacuda writes "Space.com has an article on a group of amateur rocketeers (the Civilian Space Xploration Team) hoping to send the first amateur rocket, Primera Spaceshot 2002, into space by the end of June from the Black Rock Desert in Nevada. If all goes well with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the team will send a rocket stands about 17 feet tall (5.18 meters) and weighs 550 pounds (249 kilograms) 62 nautical miles (114 kilometers) in the atmosphere (12 miles higher than the 50-mile altitude largely regarded as the boundary of space). (MSN version here)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amateur Rocket Heads Into Space More

Amateur Rocket Heads Into Space

Comments Filter:

  • Rocketguy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Oily Tuna ( 542581 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @09:50PM (#3741267) Homepage Journal
    They're going to beat the Oregon Rocketguy [rocketguy.com]. That's sad.

    • Re:Rocketguy (Score:1, Funny)

      by dbolger ( 161340 )
      Don't worry; this team are doing an unmanned launch. Rocketguy can still be the first one to get the Darwin Award for it.

  • Solid, not liquid (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20, 2002 @09:55PM (#3741291)
    I think it's interesting that this rocket uses solid propellant rather than the liquid fuel that most high-altitude rockets use. Might this be the first completely solid fueled rocket to reach space?

    • Do you really expect amateurs of this nature to design, produce, implement, etc a liquid fuel system? Not that I am saying they are dumb or anything, these people are quite intelligent and have been able to work through their designs to produce an optimal configuration for their particular rocket. But the complexities of a liquid fuel system are enormous. Controlling flow rates, storing propellant under pressures, making sure connections can withstand the forces of being propelled to 3500 mph in under 15 seconds, controlling the liquid mixture at the point of ignition, etc. Liquid fuel systems typically require entire design teams with Phds or Ms in Aerospace or equivalent engineering. The solid fuel is horribly easy, just jam some propellant in there, make sure it is compact enough and held in tightly enough to not fall out, and bam you are done.

      • Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        and bam you are done

        Nice choice of words.

      • Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well, as I remember Goddard did okay using the primitive technology and limited knowledge and experience he had. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a bunch of determined and knowledgable amateurs could build a working liquid rocket. A bunch of amateurs have done things [linux.org] at least as complex before, and will continue to do so in the future, whether you like it or not.

      • Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:3, Informative)

        by teaserX ( 252970 )
        LOX liiquid fuel systems are indeed complex. Peroxide systems on the other hand are simple. Anyone with access to machining tools could build one in an afternoon. The basic design requires a presurized fuel tank supplying a jet that sprays the peroxide through silver screens in the reaction chamber of the thruster. Lenght of flight can be determined by adusting the pressure in the tank and the flow through the jet. Check out the lander the guys at http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/ [armadilloaerospace.com]are developing. The controls are complex the basic design of the motors is not. Try Google for more peroxide rocket motor designs. You'll see what I mean.
    • I don't know how often it is used, but the U.S. does have a four-stage solid-fuled rocket capable of launching small payloads to orbit.
    • Sorry, liquid fueled rockets that use a variant on a turbo to use the thrust to pressurize the fuel have been common knowledge in the industry for a while. I'm guessing that they went with solid fuel to save money, use what they had, or really do something different.
    • Scientific balloons have attained heights of 52 kilometers (32.3 miles) and carried payloads of up to 3,600 kilograms

      http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:34Avny4awzE C: www.sciam.com/1999/1199issue/1199smith.html+balloo n+OR+balloons+altitude+space+miles+OR+kilometers&h l=en&ie=UTF-8

      • Pity they aren't launching from such a balloon -
        they'd get another 50 klicks higher at least.

        -- this is not a .sig
        • Actually, with slightly less gravity and much less air resistance to deal with, possibly considerably more.

          I've always wondered why balloons aren't used as first stages of launch vehicles, considering how much fuel a typical rocket uses just getting to the altitude to which a balloon could float. You'd also avoid a lot of weather-related launch delays. I suppose the biggest problem would be that the drifting balloon makes getting to a precise place in orbit mode difficult?
          • I've always wondered why balloons aren't used as first stages of launch vehicles, considering how much fuel a typical rocket uses just getting to the altitude to which a balloon could float. You'd also avoid a lot of weather-related launch delays. I suppose the biggest problem would be that the drifting balloon makes getting to a precise place in orbit mode difficult?

            I would imagine that it's also a fairly difficult trick to fire upward from a platform suspended under a balloon without hitting it.
    • What about escape velocity? Isn't that number important ot something?

    • Modern ICBM's are solid fueled, and they can certainly reach that height.

    • Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:5, Interesting)

      by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Friday June 21, 2002 @12:57AM (#3741943) Homepage Journal
      HPR people have been scaling up solids (using AP&rubber - basicly the same stuff the shuttle boosters use) for over a decade now - big AP rockets are not that unusual these days and have been flown to at least 100k ft (20 miles) - they are just expensive to build (propellent can cost several $1000).

      100kft is a magic number - at that point the FAA loses juristiction (we fly the smaller stuff with FAA waivers) and you have to apply to a different part of the federal govt. - the paper work is pretty intimidating - it's designed to stop people dropping dangerous things on other countrys and causing international incidents.

      Building amateur liquid propellent motors is hard - you have to get the fuel and oxidiser into the combustion chamber - that means a pressure higher than the chamber pressure - either a turbo pump - or a pressure system of some kind (for example gaseous O2 as an oxidiser at a high pressure, or an inert gas say N2 at pressure pushing a liquid say LOX or kerosene) pressure systems mean more weight.

      One system we have been flying with recently is a hybrid based system - a liquid oxidiser with a solid fuel (basicly the combustion chamber's wall burn). It turns out that nitrous oxide (yes laughing gas) is a room-temp cryogenic liquid that self-pressurizes at above chamber pressure - this means it self-pumps and can be throttled. Paint ball tanks make great light-weight pressure vessels and nitrous is available at your local speed shop, flights are cheap. It does have some downsides - it burns so efficiently that rockets make no smoke and are hard to track, it's also hard to light (of course it gets real cold when it expands).
      • Good liquid fueled rockets are hard to do right. Most of the propellants/oxidizers are either cryogenic (H2, LOX) or simply evil (Monomethyl Hydrazine, H202) There are some great publications available on-line over at NASA's History Office [slashdot.org] that document the development of boosters for various programs. I particularly recommend "Chariots for Apollo" which covers the boosters and the actual spacecraft engines. There's a reason why we refer to difficult projects as "rocket science!"
    • Doesn't the Space Shuttle use solid fuel? Or is that only in the boosters?

    • Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mikerich ( 120257 )
      No, the United States used to use the Scout family of launchers to place small payloads (less than 150 kg) into orbit.

      Solid fuel rockets have some great properties - they are relatively simple, lacking all the plumbing of a liquid system, the propellants are quite stable and they are easier to transport.

      BUT, they are less controllable - when they start burning they only stop when the fuel is gone, a liquid rocket can throttle its power for optimal performance.

      Good luck to them.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

  • Hombrew Rockets = Trouble (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hasn't anyone been to a drag car race at the local drag strip? Bunch of d-i-y hot rods made from strewn together junk racin away trying to mimic the pros .... inevitably, at least blows up every night ... or horribly malfunctions .... but hey ... at least they aren't rockets! This cannot be a good thing,
    • these guys are gonna light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance. that might count as dangerous in nevada but i don't see too many of them getting hurt if they got a long enough wick.

  • Even with advanced electronics, it is going to be interesting to see how successful they are.

    Balancing a pile of shivering metal on a pillar of flame is not all that easy.

    After all, they don't call it rocket science for nothing.

    • Re:Rocket Science (Score:2, Informative)

      by Oily Tuna ( 542581 )
      Not trivial no, but lots of people have solved the problem before [home-dome.com] without advanced electronics. They aren't going into space on first principles; I'm sure they've been to the library and read a book [amazon.com] or two [amazon.com]
  • This reminds me of the late 70s (or was it early 80s) TV movie that became a series, S.A.L.V.A.G.E. in which amateur rocketeers built a rocket in a junkyard and went to the moon. I was a little kid then, but the show was cool! IF CSXT can pull this off, they should start a satellite launching business. They would probably do a better job than NASA, considering it's new cost cutting plan.
    http://www.uncoveror.com/nasa.htm [uncoveror.com]

    • It was 1979 [imdb.com]. What a great trashy show! That was the era of great trashy TV. You had (of course) Battlestar Galactica and Land of the Lost and Ark II [yesterdayland.com] and (my all-time favorite since Race Bannon [amazon.com], although he may have been Dr. Benton Quest's gay lover [advocate.com] -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- kicked major outer-space spider ass with an M1 garand at the drop of a hat) Johnny Quest [27.org]. And not that new crap [geocities.com] they shovel down the Nintendo generation's throats, either. They can't screw with my childhood. The real Johnny Quest had bongos and snakes and crocodiles released by madmen and .50 cal machine guns on the back of Jeeps godammit. When you heard the "Caravan" theme song, you felt like action. That new shit just makes you want to buy a toy for your kid so he'll shut up already.

      Damn. Now you've made me all nostalgic. Anyone here remember "World Beyond" in Phoenix, AZ in the summers on Saturday morning? They had great trashy sci-fi movies and a ZZ Top guitar riff for intro music? Anyone remember Edmus Scary? Had AC/DC's "Back in Black" for a doorbell?

      Damn again. Sometimes I miss being a kid. Then I remember how badly 9th grade sucked and I get over it.

      -B

    • Not without a lot of fuel they won't. And probably not with this rocket. Most of a rocket's weight is in it's fuel, and that weight is lost as the fuel burns. The payload is a constant weight... and sats are heavy.

  • Hah (Score:2)

    by qslack ( 239825 )
    I got dibs on their computers! Who wants their TVs?

    Oh come on, you just know they aren't going to need them anymore.

  • FAA (Score:3, Funny)

    by URoRRuRRR ( 57117 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @10:18PM (#3741392) Journal
    The FAA won't clear them to fly. Why? To protect them from the The Terrible Secret of Space! [somethingawful.com]

  • I want one. (Score:3, Funny)

    by SHEENmaster ( 581283 ) <{ude.ktu} {ta} {sivart}> on Thursday June 20, 2002 @10:18PM (#3741394) Homepage Journal
    Will we be able to buy them in a twelve pack like flying cars in the year 2000?

    Oh well, guess not. We should get both by <?php echo year+25;?>.

  • More Information ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ProfMoriarty ( 518631 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @10:27PM (#3741437) Journal
    Is on the Amateur Radio Relay League [arrl.org] web page ...

    From that article ...

    "Amateur Radio is central to the whole flight," said Eric Knight, KB1EHE, of Unionville, Connecticut--one of the hams involved. He explained that the rocket's Automatic Position Reporting System (APRS), amateur TV and packet telemetry gear will enable the team to document its success.
    Also ... it appears to be done fairly reasonably ... only $100,000 ... not too shabby ... and well within reach of us "normal" people ... :)

  • 10 minute flight. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Linuxathome ( 242573 )
    All this [space.com] in just 10 minutes? Wow, talk about instant gratification.

    On a side note, the article says:

    Michaelson said his team, made up of people from around the country, had an original launch date of Sept. 26, 2001, but pushed it back to June following the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11.

    How much are you willing to bet that Tom Ridge's folks are keeping a keen eye on their team? Whatever they learn about rocketry must give the feds the willies.


    • How much are you willing to bet that Tom Ridge's folks are keeping a keen eye on their team? Whatever they learn about rocketry must give the feds the willies

      I doubt it; first, the Homeland Security office is too busy figuring out their turf in the administration to actually do their job, and second, rockets are about the last thing they have to worry about terrorists using against the U.S.

    • How much are you willing to bet that Tom Ridge's folks are keeping a keen eye on their team? Whatever they learn about rocketry must give the feds the willies.

      Granted there's a legitimate reason for the Homeland Security to exist, but I am concerned that we're being manipulated into staying scared.

      I watched the Simpsons yesterday (I think it had been recorded the previous day -- ReplayTV), it was the one where they went to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

      They interrupted the broadcast, not once but twice, first to say a plane was near the White House and its radio had broken (not in so many words; they stressed the words "evacuated the White House!" over and over).

      They broke in again to say "No worries."

      I lost about a third of the show. If I want news, I'll turn on CNN. Thanks. </rant>

  • I went to a ham radio fest recently for the first time, and I noticed that most of the guys there were older men. I guess ham radio must have seemed a lot more exciting to young people several decades ago. And I know that is true with Rocketry because of the hype back in the fifties and sixties over the russian ICBMs and getting to the moon first. So what do you guys think, are rocketeers a dying breed or is it an interest which is becoming more popular lately? On the one hand, many of the fifties-era, crew-cut, slide-rule carrying rocket scientists are gone. But OTOH, you don't have to be a superpower to get in the game now and space may be on the verge of commercialization. So is Aerospace Engineering a "cool" profession for the next generation?
    • their Nintendos. The instant satisfaction factor of playing Max Payne has not yet lost it's gloss; but it will. Once you've shot every imaginable bad guy, with every imaginable weapon while falling through fluidic space backwards and tumbling... it will get old and the rewards of the longer term pursuits will again seem worthy of the efforts. Computers have been an adventure for a couple decades now, but soon, for most, they'll just be tools again, about as exciting as screwdriver design.

      Thankfully some will retain their interest after the glam is gone, Blessed be the inventers of Torx.
    • They are most certainly NOT a dying breed :) Have a look at our group : http://www.mars.org.uk , we are a group of young professionals who have launched at Black Rock before, using a rocket motor ordered from the VERY cool and capable Ky Michaelson - he's a dude... Regards.
  • When I lived In Las Vegas I used to shoot off my rockets in that desert, its amazing that something this historic is being held in the same place I flew off my PBC pipe rocks we made in tech class! Very very very cool! oh well Hopefully they wont hit a plane or something...:-)
  • IANARS(I am not a rocket scientist), but looking at the picture of the first rocket, it looks like an American flag was tied on to the side of it. I don't know anything about rockets, but wouldn't this flag cause problems as far as aerodynamics and wind, etc?

    The first try was brought down by wind shear, but the article didn't go into explicit detail about the crash. Just based on watching NASA shuttle launches, I never saw anything like that hanging off the side of the rocket. Maybe this would have caused a problem? Or is the flag so insignificant compared to the propulsion of the rocket?

  • I've met the guy once or twice an heard about losin a fin couple years back. guy has a screw or two loose but the math seems proper. From wha i undertand the guy had to put up a fight to the faa/military to launch the thing. they gave em a fair amount of flack on the whole rocket launch shit.
  • that our fellow Slashdotter/Linux nut/3D guru John Carmack isn't launching his XPrize contender. For those who are not following his adventures in amateur rocketry, a few years back he started a company called Armadillo Aerospace [armadilloaerospace.com] which is a hobby project of sorts. They have created prototypes for hydrogen peroxide powered landers and are working on a suborbital launch in a near future.
  • While Ky's launch will probably be pretty private (if only for safety reasons) - AeroPac [aeropac.org] is having our first launch of the year at the same spot (BlackRock ) - Northern Nevada this weekend.

    Sat and Sun mornings are the best time for launching (low winds) - the playa is BIG lots of room for recovery .... and camping

  • Been Done (well, almost) (Score:5, Informative)

    by jheinen ( 82399 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @11:58PM (#3741751) Homepage
    The Reaction Research Society [rrs.org] pretty much did just this back in 1996. They launched a solid-fueled rocket carrying an amateur television transmitter to a height of approximately 280,000 ft., which is about 46 nm.; just three miles short of the official "boundary". They weren't going for an official record, although I believe it was and remains the highest amateur launch to date.

    The rocket reached a maximum acceleration of 35 Gs, and attained mach 4.5 in 5 seconds. Their site has some good photos and video of the launch, both from the ground and from the rocket.

    -Jeff
    • Space Propulsion Engine for Flying Saucer - New Physics

      Inventor of 3D volume holographic optical storage
      shopping his concept for Space Propulsion Engine
      using Propellantless Mass to US and other countries.

      for further look at biography background goto

      http://colossalstorage.net/colossal.htm

      He says he has looked at and researched the world's space agencies, aerospace
      companies, universities research, and corp. research and feels very confident
      knowing others technology while no one knows his.

      He is working in top secret and he says no physicist or scientist he has ever studied or researched had this approach and knows his concept will work to give near light speed travel thru Galaxy with 500K/Miles per Hour to start or 138 miles/sec. Nasa fastest time are 25,000 mile/hr or 3.9 miles/sec

      he says it is a mankind first concept !!

  • Ky Michealson (and others) (Score:5, Informative)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Friday June 21, 2002 @12:02AM (#3741759) Homepage Journal
    Some insight:

    I'm a rocketry hobbyist. I fly up to H power models. Not very ambitious, but I'm part of the rocket nerd community.

    Ky is a real guy. A competent fellow who, while sometimes a bit of a self-promoter, is very competent and not a nut-job dreamer. Ky and his wife are regulars at HP and experimental rocketry launches. They sell a line of heavy-duty parachutes and other recovery gear.

    I have full confidence in Ky and his team.

    As for those other guys:

    The Oregon RocketGuy strikes me as an earnest, overconfident not-quite-a-nut. I think he's backed off from his "first flight will have me in it, tests cost too much!", which is a good thing for all involved. I hope he can pull it off.

    The British X-prize hopeful, Bennet -- I forget his first name -- is a pretentious con-artist. The rockets he launches are nothing special. You can see dozens like it at a typical LDRS event. He claims that these are test flights, to test recovery gear etc., but they're really just large model rocket launches. Watching the videos of him at work is embarassing.

    Example: A year or two back, one of the cable channels had a segment on one of his test launches. After setting up the rocket on the beach, he and a helper walked to their launch bunker (a hole in the sand), spooling out the launch leads as they went. It turned out that the leads were too short. They couldn't reach the foxhole. Duh?

    When the time for launch came, we see Bennet instruct his helper on how to press the launch button on the second launch controller, and to be sure to do so at exactly the same time he pressed the button on his controller.

    SECOND launch controller? Because the model had multiple motors, right? But model rocketeers with any experience know how to hook up multiple igniters in parallel, eliminating the nasty problem of buttons pushed out of synch.

    • re: amateur rocketry (Score:5, Funny)

      by herrd0kt0r ( 585718 ) on Friday June 21, 2002 @12:20AM (#3741804)
      thanks for your rocketry story! i remember building model rockets when i was younger, and dealing with all sorts of details that went into the launch. my younger brother was into it, too, and i think some of these details were a little too much to bother with.

      see, we were super competitive. i remember building a C power rocket one afternoon. my siblings and i were very competitive. the aforementioned brother HAD to build a rocket, too.

      of course, he, being the youngest brother, ended up getting shafted in the dough-for-fun-fund. he wound up scrounging enough money to buy the Mosquito, a rocket that used A (AA? AAA? what's the smallest rocket?), and was no taller than a pencil.

      launch time was nearing for me, so he set to work at a feverish pace. he soon came out with this hideously spray-painted, still-wet and dripping with paint yellow and black rocket that looked uber pizacrap.

      we launched it in front of our house in the suburbs. neighborhood kids came out to watch. he threaded the rocket onto the launching pad, connected the fuse up, and started the countdown.

      3...
      2...
      1...
      FWOOOOOOOSH!

      sucker flew straight! straight up REAL FAST! all these kids were ooohing and ahhing. even the folks across the street were impressed! the rocket didn't get too high-- it was still very visible when it began to slow down and arc downward.

      there's something terribly graceful about a rocket gliding in the air-- it was beautiful. not a peep was heard in the crowd.

      so heavenly, so peaceful! we knew that any moment now, the tiny secondary charge would gently pop the nosecone off and unfurl the streamer which would let it fall gently to the ground...

      so graceful!

      then BOOM! the rocket BLASTED toward the earth at something akin to warp 10. kids were screaming and tried to run away, but it was just too fast! it impaled itself into the ground, several inches deep, still smoking, and then caught fire.

      kids were crying. parents were yelling. we began to try to figure out what happened. he glued the nosecone, which is supposed to pop off, into place.

      that secondary charge had nowhere to go but out the back of the rocket. and when the back of the rocket is facing up, the rocket's gonna go down. fast.

      THE MORAL OF THE STORY:

      NEVER GLUE THE NOSECONE IN PLACE.
      also, WET SPRAYPAINT IS A FIRE HAZARD.
      • I have a similar story

        I won an essay contest in 5th grade and got to go to Space Camp. One of the days there we built estes rockets - I think we used the Payloader, because there was a clear tube below the nosecone. We found some lucky insects and shot them off.

        One girl's rocket wouldn't start. After several failed launches, the instructor unhooked it and tried to take the engine out. She couldn't. These rockets had a hook assembly in the bottom and had been hastily put together. This one had the hook glued in place and unable to move, keeping the engine from sliding out. The instructor had no problem pushing it farther in though. So she just shoved in a new engine.

        It launched successfully on that windless day, everybody clapped, and a few seconds elapsed. These engines were single stage engines - some engines are made without a delay so they can ignite another stage while a lower stage separates. In this case, the delay allowed the rocket to point downward before the "second stage" was ignited. The old engine that had had problems was now sending the rocket straight at us. We yelled and ran, and the rocket made touchdown right where we had been standing, the slender nose cone burying itself about 6 inches into the soft dirt and the engine still burning, the body tube twisted and blackened, unraveling about its sprial seam.

        A few of us ran back toward the rocket to get a look at it. And right as somebody was pulling it out of the ground, that's when the _second_ ejection charge went off...

        :-)
      • Not being too bright (still), I once launched an Erector Set. Seriously. It was actually supposed to be a rocket motor test stand (forget why I needed *that*), but it had one design flaw. Though the stand was held down by one of those big 6v lantern batteries, the motor thrust was directed skyward, instead of towards the ground.

        And yes, this thing was built from a 70's vintage erector set: potmetal, bolts and nuts.

        When the day came, I set this thing up in the back woods. I was 14 or so, so mom was in attendance. Slipped in a nice C-motor, wired it up, stood back, and flipped the switch.

        The battery flew a good six feet. The stand -- did I mention it was an erector set? -- shot straight up about 5 feet, tipped over 90 degrees or so and began swirling like a dervish through the woods, bouncing off tree trunks, hurtling sidewards at myself and then my mom (both of us running for our lives at this point), spewing smoke and exhaust every which way, before the motor finally burned out and the thing crashed down in a heap in the grass, about 15 feet from where it started.

        We approached it gingerly, coming up to it just in time for one last convulsive, metallic lurch as the ejection charge fired.

        Mom, she just looked at me grimly and said "You're not trying that again." Me, I did not become an engineer of any description.
    • Your comments are very accurate (well certainly about Bennett).

      I was at Ky's launch a few years back, and the guy is very professional. He's very determined, and I have no doubt he will get a vehicle to space.

      As for Bennett, as one of the UK rocketeers who has suffered at the hands of Bennett (and had the misfortune to meet him), I'd say your comments are, if anything, in my opinion, too kind to him. He flies large, very nicely finished high power model rockets. Period. He may claim all sorts of things, but given that a recent launch of his was on a cluster of M1939's when he was making all sorts of wild claims, then it sort of puts it into perspective. His largest vehicle isn't even as large as the some of the larger HPR vehicles such as the U.S. Project 463 - which for someone who seems to attach so much importance to size of his rockets, seems to be a bit amiss :-) Most UK rocketeers are wary of saying too much about him, because he has been known to try to sue people who say things he doesn't like in the UK.

      As you say, if he really was what he claims, why is he using the launch controllers he uses ? You have to feel sorry for those who follow him, since they probably have no idea of the accuracy of what he claims.

      Eventually, in my opinion, the truth will catch up with him. People are already starting to wise up to him in the UK as this article [bbc.co.uk] shows.

  • Nobody really thought that outer space started at fifty miles of altitude -- sixty or seventy five miles up was the start of real space. Then the US developed spy satellites that could dip down to about 60 miles to get a better look and refused to agree to any treaties that wouldn't allow that. So, space is not what it used to be.

  • Units! (Score:3, Informative)

    by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Friday June 21, 2002 @01:27AM (#3742014) Homepage
    62 nautical miles (114 kilometers)

    Um, no. Actually 62 miles is just a shade under 100 km. 100 km would be about 62.14 miles. And this significance of this is... (wait for it)

    (12 miles higher than the 50-mile altitude largely regarded as the boundary of space)

    Um, no. The 50 mile altitude is what the USAF awarded astronaut wings for to X-15 pilots who exceeded it, and may even be the US legal definition of where space begins, but it's 100 km (ah!) that is the boundary of space as far as the International Aeronautical Federation is concerned.
    • Argh, even when you preview you miss things.

      While 62 standard miles is about 100 km, the original post said 62 nautical miles. However, the rest of the post stands, and I wonder if "nautical" was a mistake.

      (Stupid imperial measurement system....)

  • Active guidance? (Score:3, Informative)

    by po8 ( 187055 ) on Friday June 21, 2002 @01:32AM (#3742027)

    Ky Michaelson and his team are for real, and it will be interesting to see if they make it work: our group will be out at Black Rock cheering them on.

    That said, as far as I know, this rocket lacks what is known in the trade as "active guidance": i.e., it cannot steer itself. This leads to two big problems. First, it is very hard to build a rocket that will go up very straight to 100km. Large fins are required for the upper atmosphere, but they cause tremendous drag near the ground. (Also, BTW, the potential landing radius of the debris in the event of failure of the airframe or parachutes is huge: part of why the FAA is so nervous about the whole thing.)

    Second, even if the rocket does make it "into space", it is essentially impossible to make it into orbit. To orbit something, you need to go up and then sideways: this requires steering.

    Imagine putting a car out on a salt flat, tying the wheels down, aiming it north, and letting it travel for 50 miles. It would probably end up somewhere north of where it started. More than that, it would be difficult to say. This rocket is aimed 50 miles up. With luck, it will end up falling from above us somewhere. More than that...

  • Nautical Miles != Standard Miles (Score:3, Informative)

    by LuYu ( 519260 ) on Friday June 21, 2002 @02:54AM (#3742167) Homepage Journal

    It appears that there is a mistake in this article. The mile (mi) nautical mile (nmi) seem to be treated as the same distance. However, one mile is 5280 feet, and one nautical mile is 6076.1 feet by this definition [bldrdoc.gov], or 6080.27 feet in the definition given in GDict. This means that the estimated altitude of the rocket will be approximately 71.35 standard miles (mi) or 71.40 standard miles (mi) (respectively).

    It also appears according to this NASA page [nasa.gov] that 50 miles is the altitude one has to achieve to be called an astronaut in the USA. However, the atmosphere's friction boundary is 75.76 miles, according to the same page [nasa.gov]. So the rocket will be approximately 4.41 to 4.36 miles short of the friction boundary, but any lifeforms (bacteria, etc.) that survive the journey will be astronauts in the USA.

  • 62 nautical miles (114 kilometers) in the atmosphere (12 miles higher than the 50-mile altitude largely regarded as the boundary of space). (MSN version here)"

    62 miles high is not space it does not even achieve a stable orbit never mind escape velocity. In my book this is not space.
    • 100 km (approx 62 miles) is the official definition of the beginning of space defined by the International Aeronautical Federation [fai.org], as well as many other bodies, including the Internation Astronautical Federation.

      The U.S. awards astronaut status to anyone who flies above 50 miles. At 50 miles, atmospheric density is one-thousandth that at sea level. You'd die instantly if you stepped outside at that altitude.

      At 100km, the atmospheric density is near-vacuum, and rudders and wings on an aircraft will not work - no aerodynamic control is possible. If you step outside your vehicle, you will explosively decompress.

  • I certainly hope they succeed. I was wondering what constitutes space junk? If the rocket does cross the boundry, how long until it comes down?
    • It'll come down very soon after apogee (the point where gravity/friction slows it to a stop and it "hovers" for a brief moment).

      Remember - there is a difference between launching a rocket into space, and launching into orbit. If you wish to go into orbit, you'll need much, much, MUCH more power than this space shot attempt will produce :)

      Regards.
    • Jack Valenti
    • John Ashcroft
    • Bill Gates
    • George Bush
    • Cowboyneal exceeds payload limits, so he's not on this poll option
  • I don't have a warm a fuzzy feeling about having armatures trying to lob heavy objects into space. If you think about it, it is really crazy.

    If the guidance goes awry they could kill someone.

    "Let's pack a big cylinder with rocket fuel and light it."

    "OK, but first pass me another beer."

Slashdot Top Deals

"Who cares if it doesn't do anything? It was made with our new Triple-Iso-Bifurcated-Krypton-Gate-MOS process ..."

Close