Amateur Rocket Heads Into Space 244
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)"
Rocketguy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rocketguy (Score:1, Funny)
Solid, not liquid (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:1)
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)
Nice choice of words.
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:4, Informative)
And then their's solid-liquid hybrid. (Score:3, Interesting)
There's an alternative: Solid/liquid hybrids, such as AMROC (AMerican ROcket Corporation) tried to commercialize.
Basic idea is you use one part (typically the fuel) as a solid, the other part (typically the oxidizer) as a liquid.
You only need to throttle ONE of the two parts to get the throttling advantage if you chose to throttle the oxidizer (which results in a lowered flame) rather than the fuel (which results in a lean and unstable flame). Meanwhile, a fuel-only solid fuel is literally safe as houses.
With only one part liquid you have only one tank, one set of valves, one pump-or-tank-pressurizer, and no problems with balancing the fuel flows of the two parts.
LOX is reasonably easy to make and handle, only moderately dangerous, while LH2 is extremely difficult and dangerous to make and handle. LOX is dense while LH2 is very light - much less dense than an equivalent amount of hydrogen bound into a compound (such as a hydrocarbon). So you're way ahead to use a LOX/solid hydrocarbon hybrid.
AMROC used LOX and synthetic rubber. The fuel part was 'way stable - they handed out paperweights made of it for fund-raising trinkets and bounced them off the desks of bureaucrats who wanted them to get explosives licences for their fuel facility. (I've still got one around here somewhere.) One of the advantages of this combo was that it was flat-out impossible to get it to explode. (The worst you could do is make it burn extra hot.)
AMROC got pretty far along before they folded. The end came after their primary evangalest/fundraiser died in an auto accident. (I forget his name just now. But he was the same guy who talked the city of Chicago to let the people making the move The Blues Brothers to air-drop an automobile over the city.)
They had already done their engine tests and had their first suborbital launch ready to go at a rented pad at Vandenberg. They went ahead with the test and had what was probably the worst possible engine failure: After lighting the LOX valve stuck at 10% open - too low to get off the pad, too high to put out the fire. So the rocket sat there burning up, and eventually flame-damaged part of the launch tower. They didn't have enough funding for a second try, and without their primary fundraiser they folded.
SpaceDev bought them (Score:2)
The Scout Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:1)
Balloons are still better (Score:1)
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:34Avny4awz
Re:Balloons are still better (Score:2)
they'd get another 50 klicks higher at least.
-- this is not a
Re:Balloons are still better (Score:2)
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?
Re:Balloons are still better (Score:2)
I would imagine that it's also a fairly difficult trick to fire upward from a platform suspended under a balloon without hitting it.
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:1)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2)
Re:Solid, not liquid (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re:Hombrew Rockets = Trouble (Score:1)
Re:Hombrew Rockets = Trouble (Score:2)
There is a thing called a "calculated risk", by the way. Some people don't know how to do calculations anymore though, or they would realize that some attempts are just plain stupid.
Rocket Science (Score:2)
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)
Sounds like S.A.L.V.A.G.E. (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.uncoveror.com/nasa.htm [uncoveror.com]
Re:Sounds like S.A.L.V.A.G.E. (Score:2)
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
Re:Sounds like S.A.L.V.A.G.E. (Score:1)
Hah (Score:2)
Oh come on, you just know they aren't going to need them anymore.
Re:Hah (Score:1)
FAA (Score:3, Funny)
I want one. (Score:3, Funny)
Oh well, guess not. We should get both by <?php echo year+25;?>.
More Information ... (Score:3, Informative)
From that article ...
Also10 minute flight. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Tom Ridge Don't Care (Score:2)
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.
Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care (Score:1)
Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care (Score:2)
Re:Tom Ridge Don't Care (Score:1)
Re:10 minute flight. (Score:2)
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>
Are rocketeers a dying breed (Score:2)
Nah, it just takes time for people to get over... (Score:1)
Thankfully some will retain their interest after the glam is gone, Blessed be the inventers of Torx.
Nope! :) MARS are a young and vibrant UK group! (Score:2, Informative)
Oops! Motor from Frank Kosdon, NOT Ky!! (Score:2)
The motor we bought was from Kosdon - and he's a dude, too.
Good luck to Ky's group anyway
I used to fly rockets there (Score:1)
First attempt failed... (Score:1)
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?
Re:First attempt failed... (Score:1)
Re:First attempt failed... (Score:1)
I know he's a little crazy... (Score:1)
What a shame... (Score:1)
Rockets - Nevada - this weekend (Score:2)
Sat and Sun mornings are the best time for launching (low winds) - the playa is BIG lots of room for recovery
Re:Rockets - Nevada - this weekend (Score:1)
;)
Re:Rockets - Nevada - this weekend (Score:2)
That looks like great fun, wish I could come. Not too many dry lake beds out East for that sort of thing, heh. Do you guys mind visitors just coming out for the weekend? I might try to do that for one of the weekends this summer if possible.
Re:Rockets - Nevada - this weekend (Score:2, Informative)
Been Done (well, almost) (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Been Done (well, almost) !! What Great Fun !! (Score:1, Interesting)
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 !!
Re:46 nano-meters would be a short launch. (Score:3, Funny)
What do the English have to do with this? They use metric. =)
Re:46 nano-meters would be a short launch. (Score:2, Informative)
Ky Michealson (and others) (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: amateur rocketry (Score:3, Funny)
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...
:-)
Re: amateur rocketry (Score:2, Funny)
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.
bad designs (Score:2)
Another was the Pershing Missile. Huge rocket, like three feet tall, six inches in diamter. The nose cone must have weighted at least two pounds. I think it used a single C engine, which made no sense but I figured if that's how they designed it, I'd give it a try. Yeah, it launched, about 15 feet in the air and came plummeting back down. The nose cone never separated; not that it would have helped since it was too low for a parachute, but the weight of the nose cone crushed the body. Oh well, I guess some rockets were designed simply to build and display. I had to build a special launch pad too, since the flimsy 3-legged one kept tipping over.
Speaking of tipping over, we forgot to tighten the wingnut later (I think it got partially stripped when I put the Pershing on it), and just as my friend was launching his Mosquito, the rod slipped. The Mosquito fired about 10 degrees above vertical. Now, that was a sight! The mosquito screaming across the field an slamming into a woodshed about 150 yards away.
Another carzy model was the "Drifter". It came with a huge parachute, like 36" for a small rocket; I was too young to figure out what was going to happen. That thing drifted at least a mile and a half as we chased it down on our bikes. We lost sight of it, and didn't find it until a week later, hung up in a tree.
I doubt anyone back in my hometown does it anymore; the burbs have grown more crowded, the people are more paranoid, and kids more apt to stay inside. It's a shame, because I have some great memories from my rocketeering days.
Re:Ky Michealson (and others) (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Definition of Space (Score:1)
Units! (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Units! (Score:2)
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....)
Re:Units! (Score:2)
You didn't correct it, you wondered whether "nautical" was a mistake. The AC pointed out that it probably wasn't, and why not. Basically, this whole thread is pointless, and you shouldn't be whining about moderation when you screwed up.
Re:Units! (Score:2)
Active guidance? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Not Really Space (Score:2)
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.
Really Space (Score:2)
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.
Junk? (Score:2)
Re:Junk? (Score:2)
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.
Slashdot Poll: Favourite Rocket Payload ? (Score:2, Funny)
Interesting but... (Score:2)
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."
Re:Better than NASA I hope (Score:1)
This screams failure.
Re:Better than NASA I hope (Score:1)
Re:Better than NASA I hope (Score:2, Informative)
I think the main reason that we haven't picked up the metric system is that American's have learned about how big a foot, yard, gallon, and the like are, but don't have any good estimates for how big kilograms, liters, and centimeters are. Also the average american hasn't done dynamics under the english system, messing up lbf and lbm more times than I could count in college was enough for me to see the logic in the metric system.
Silly European Tricks... (Score:2)
Yes, leave it to the Europeans to have to have an ISO standard to tell them what to write letters on...
Re:Silly European Tricks... (Score:1)
Sorry, I just assume anyone with such a snooty attitude who makes dumb American jokes must be European. Probably French, if they're extra-snooty...
> There is more to the World than just Europe and the US.
Sorry, I only take note of people and places with accomplishments.
Re:Silly European Tricks... (Score:2)
The most advanced American technlogy must therefore be the bow and arrow, since everything else has been done by the "current European inhabitants".
Re:Silly European Tricks... (Score:1)
Re:Better than NASA I hope (Score:2, Interesting)
There was a documentary recently about the explosion and they interviewed the head engineer of the project, who fought to abort the launch but was overridden by management, but they wouldn't listen to him.
Re:Better than NASA I hope (Score:1)
I hope these chaps are successful in getting their rocket up there. We'll be one baby step closer to opening the space market to the private sector.
Re:Now if we could just..(obligatory) (Score:1)
Re:Now if we could just... (Score:1)
Maybe the (project like this') co-ordinators could take people's submissions for payload ideas, then they and/or we could vote on the best and send it/them along also.
Re:Now if we could just... (Score:1)
While we're up there, someone could drop a huge EMP pulse down to the planet surface for the ultimate slashdotting...
Re:First Post as an Adult! (Score:1)
Re:First Post as an Adult! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? (Score:2)
Most balloons do not have much of a payload and I have a suspicion that getting a decent sized payload up high requires a really really big balloon.
Any physicists/aeronauticists out there to confirm this?
Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? (Score:2)
Any balloon is going to have an absolute limit as to how high it can go.
Re:*why* *why* *WHY*? (Score:2)
But what you're doing is exchanging additional structural elements for the the weight of the gas, so you're really getting nothing. In addition, it would be impractical to build a vaccuum chamber that would resist crushing close to the ground. Your balloon would have to be made out of steel.
Re:Dangerous... (Score:2)
Who was the wife, Wilbur [geocities.com] or Orville [uselessknowledge.com]?