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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Canadian Arrow Taking Applications for Astronauts 149

Posted by CowboyNeal from the adventurers-needed dept.
Christian Nally writes "The Canadian Arrow X-Prize team is taking applications for its X Prize attempt. It's going to be a show down between this group and many others including John Carmack's Armadillo. Let's hope that the X-Prize foundations 'end of 2004' deadline doesn't inspire people to cut corners on safety."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Arrow Taking Applications for Astronauts More

Canadian Arrow Taking Applications for Astronauts

Comments Filter:

  • resources (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Ubi_NL ( 313657 )
    Sure it'll be nice to have disneyland-in-space.
    However I just can't ignore the incredible amount of resources this 'fun' is going to cost. The amount of fules neccesary for one trip is just rediculous (don't give that clean fuel / hydrogen crap as it takes oil / elctrolysis to get the hydrogen in the first place).

    And they want to make things like this a tourist attraction?
    Sjeesh

    • Re:resources (Score:4, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @07:39AM (#4676116)
      However I just can't ignore the incredible amount of resources this 'fun' is going to cost. The amount of fules neccesary for one trip is just rediculous (don't give that clean fuel / hydrogen crap as it takes oil / elctrolysis to get the hydrogen in the first place).

      As any fule know... :-)

      If we're postulating mass space tourism, we can probably get away with postulating efficient solar or fusion power to go with it... they're both pipe-dreams hovering somewhere in the technological middle-distance. Then you can have your hydrogen by electrolysis without trouble.

      To make space tourism economic, we need to either (a) make it possible to get into orbit using far less energy, or (b) make energy available much more cheaply. So nobody's going up there without some major breakthrough that would massively reduce the resources required.

      • Re:resources (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kinniken ( 624803 )
        If we're postulating mass space tourism, we can probably get away with postulating efficient solar or fusion power to go with it...
        they're both pipe-dreams hovering somewhere in the technological middle-distance. Then you can have your hydrogen by
        electrolysis without trouble.

        To make space tourism economic, we need to either (a) make it possible to get into orbit using far less energy, or (b) make energy available much more cheaply. So nobody's going up there without some major breakthrough that would massively reduce the resources required.

        That's only true of real mass-space tourism, something which is still some way off.

        What's more likely,is the development of limited space tourism, for the very rich only... it has already started, and as the price drop a bit it will get more common.

        Most likely, this will use traditional rocketry in a cheaper form, and it will polute a LOT. In particular, the upper atmosphere will suffer.

        In short: if there is a way to make "cheap" space trips, space tourism will develop. Wherever it's polluting or not is sadly not the question.

      • Re:resources (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If we're postulating mass space tourism, we can probably get away with postulating efficient solar or fusion power to go with it

        I think the same sort of postulating went on about mass air transport, road transport .....

        There has realy only been 5 revolutions in how we have powered transport over the last million(?) years

        Walking

        Horses

        Sail

        Steam

        Oil

        Another is electric transport but is only limited to some railways.

        If clean fuels were a priority, they would already be used in the exisiting mass transport systems. Thinking that a new power source will develope through space transportation is, as you say, postulating.

      • Re:resources (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Rubyflame ( 159891 )

        To make space tourism economic, we need to either (a) make it possible to get into orbit using far less energy, or (b) make energy available much more cheaply

        This is just wrong. People make a big deal about fuel costs, but that's really the smallest part of the cost of getting into space. If fuel was all that mattered, you'd be able to go to space for maybe a thousand dollars. As it stands, it costs millions. This is because NASA's launchers are fiendishly complicated, and require a tremendous staff of engineers to check, recheck, and replace tens of thousands of components.

        Even the cost of the components themselves is dwarfed by the cost of paying 10,000 people for the 6 months that it takes to prep the shuttle for launch.

        If we can do away with all this personnel by making the designs simpler, then we will have realized the dream of cheap spaceflight.

        ( and don't think it's not doable! Companies like Armadillo and XCOR may accomplish this! )

    • If there are many tourists, a more efficient launch system will exist. Probably a fully reusable airport-launched shuttle.

      But it's still going to cost a lot. So there won't be millions of tourists a year, and most of those tourists will then not be able to afford a half-dozen vacations in Hawaii. I haven't calculated the relative fuel demands...

      However, I doubt the energy demands will exceed that of one or two nuclear power plants. The income from such tourism should be able to pay for its own power...and remove more fissionable from the environment at the same time.

    • One of the reasons for the X-Prize is to encourage private space development. One of the side ffects of this will likely be more efficent earth to orbit transport. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen eventually..
    • And if your hydrogen is produced by hydro electric? You sound like a farking republican with your violent reaction to a competing fuel source. Either that, or an Iraqi.

      BTW, who pissed in your wheaties this morning?

    • don't give that clean fuel / hydrogen crap

      Who the hell other than NASA would use that fuel system? dangerous, unstable, harder to deal with..

      More than likely they'll use a simple kerosene/oxidizer rocket... more thrust per pound of fuel, easier to get, doesnt explode violently when you get a spark in the tanks.

      Hell we went to the moon that way.

    • Nah Re:resources (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @09:13AM (#4676497) Homepage
      However I just can't ignore the incredible amount of resources this 'fun' is going to cost

      No.

      The fuel cost is very, very low actually; less than $10/lb of payload.

      I worked out that if I was to go into space, I'd have to spend about as much fuel putting me there, as my car burns in a year. But unlike my car I ain't doing this every week or even every year. The number of people going into space for the forseeable future is only a few thousand; the number of cars out there are incredibly high, in the hundreds of millions, so the relative environmental impact of rocketry is quite, quite negligible.

      And there are plenty of space technologies that have a positive environmental impact. Would the ozone layer hole have been found without satellites? I actually believe that overall, space will have a very significant net positive environmental impact.

      • I actually believe that overall, space will have a very significant net positive environmental impact.

        Yeah, and principally by ridding the Earth of the disease known as humanity. Hopefully, the Earth will eventually be an international park.
        ______________
        • Unless space elevators make it, and make it in a really big way, I can't really see that happening; the environmental cost of launching every man, woman and child off of the earth is rather prohibitive.

          Atleast I assume you are talking about moving them, and not doing something more drastic ;-).

    • don't give that clean fuel / hydrogen crap

      I won't, since it's not even a hydrogen/oxygen rocket. Anyway, considering the scale I think the environmental impact will be negligible.

    • Well, taking Carmack's setup as an example...

      Oxidizer: hydrogen peroxide. Made from, and dissolves back into, water, oxygen, and energy.

      Fuel: kerosene. With the amounts he'd need, even a large-scale space tourist operation would barely make a dent in the world's supply, at least in the years, maybe decades, it will take to start mining the Moon for helium-3 and develop that as a power source (fusion == much more efficient thrust).

  • Prize is just at $5 mllion (Score:4, Interesting)

    by osullish ( 586626 ) <osullish@gmail.cCHICAGOom minus city> on Friday November 15, 2002 @07:39AM (#4676112)
    The prize money is just at $5 million, so to make it economically viable to enter this competition your vehicle must be developed for less than that...

    Me thinks thats not gonna be very safe

    • Well if they use pencils and dont develop space pens, that would be a safe start to cost cutting.... ;)
      • The space pens/pencils story is a pretty funny one, but you have to remember that wood and graphite are dangerously combustible in a pure oxygen atmosphere, and graphite dust is the last thing you want floating around in a cabin full of computers.
        *I* will fly on a spacecraft that can afford the money for a Fisher Space Pen, thanks.
        -aiabx

    • Re:Prize is just at $5 mllion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bartmoss ( 16109 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @08:46AM (#4676337) Homepage Journal
      I assume that the success itself is worth far more.
    • $5 million

      Um. Yup. A drop in the ocean compared to the cost of a single launch, never mind a whole programme. The US space shuttle costs ~$400 million a launch. The whole programme costs the ~$4Billion per year. The ISS is expect to cost ~$100 billion.

      'not gonna be very safe'

      for whom ? The passengers or investors?

      IMHO this will make the DOT-COM bubble look like loose change.
    • Er. wasn't the prize [xprize.org] US$10 million? That's what their site says.

      Besides, the whole point of the program is for private manned spaceflight to be feasible at US$10M. Sure, you can throw a gazillion dollars to a space program and make it SUPER safe, but that's not what this is about. This is about risk, exploration, daring. The same kinds of things that made Lindberg famous and motivated an entire industry to make trans-atlantic flights open to the public. Remember this competition is modeled after the one lindberg won.

      Most likely someone will die trying to win the prize and they know it. So do the competing teams. I can't find a link, but the Xprize promoters themselves have said so.
    • The prize money is just at $5 million, so to make it economically viable to enter this competition your vehicle must be developed for less than that...

      Nope. The teams intend to sell flights to the general public. I mean, that's what the prize is trying to encourage, right? So they can borrow/invest money as well towards their expected income.

    • One of the more interesting things about the X-Prize is how the teams that are making progress are doing in on old technology. The Canadian Arrow uses and updated V-2 design and Starchaser.co.uk is using sounding rockets as their starting point. It's 1960's and earlier technology, updated with 21 century electronics and materials.
    • Where did you get this interesting "fact" that the Xprize is at $5m? I work for Xprize and Peter Diamandis, the guy who runs the show and I happen to know that the prize is $10 million and accounted for.
      __________

  • Canadian Secret X-Prize Program (Score:5, Funny)

    by InvaderSkooge ( 615857 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @07:40AM (#4676117) Homepage Journal
    So if I get in, do I get adamantium claws?
    • So if I get in, do I get adamantium claws?

      Only if you have bone claws to begin with.
    • Actually.. I'm a little surprised that they named the project the Arrow, considering the fate of the last Canadian Arrow [exn.ca](My girlfriend's father was one of the engineers on the project).

      Seriously, the Avro Arrow is one of the things that every Canadian learns about in history class and there certainly wouldn't be a canadian aerospace engineer who wasn't familiar with the story. So I'm wondering if the name is some sort of inside joke to them or if possibly some suit decided it was a good name and the engineers couldn't explain the stigma that goes along with it.

      Well, redardless, good luck to them.
    • So if I get in, do I get adamantium claws?
      No, but you do stand to gain either
      #1:Stretching powers
      #2Invisibility
      #3:The ability to set yourself on fire
      #4Super strength and freakish orange features.

  • cut corners on safety (Score:5, Funny)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @07:41AM (#4676118) Journal
    the ones who do cut corners are likely not te be able to collect their price... they can offcourse imediately apply for darwin award nomination :-)
    • This reminds me of a quote from Wings of Honneamise:

      "I suppose it could carry that, but mostly it will be full of clever gadgets designed to keep you alive -- although we may have to skimp on some of those"

      For those who do not know, WoH is an anime movie about a fictitious nation's attempt to get a man into orbit for the first time.

      --
      RN
    • I don't think one can nominate themselves for the Darwin Awards. It's too easy to then make yourself qualified for the Award, which is not something the Judges wish to encourage. Despite it being in the best interest of the species, there are certain legal complications. I believe the Judges would particularly appreciate nominations of lawyers.

  • On safety (Score:5, Funny)

    by m_chan ( 95943 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @07:45AM (#4676127) Homepage
    Let's hope that the X-Prize foundations 'end of 2004' deadline doesn't inspire people to cut corners on safety.

    Unless Lance Bass really gets to go this time. Then, let's not.
  • This is a potentially dangerous endeavor for Carmack, as he is used to releasing games with bugs, and patching them down the road. You can't do that in space. To quote Khan, "It's very cold in space..."

    • Re:Carmack (Score:3, Funny)

      by Coz ( 178857 )
      "... and very hot during re-entry."
    • Well, to be pedantic, empty space has no temparture, as there is no matter there to HAVE a termparature.

      • Space temp (Score:3, Informative)

        by AlecC ( 512609 )
        True. Several recent articles on space telescopes have commented on the dofficulty of getting rid of waste heat. Viewers generally want to be as cold as possible - obviously infra-red, but is seems tha other sensors benefit from being very cold. But the sun heats it, power supplies, actuators an electronics all generate heat. With no convection or conduction to the environment, there is only radiation left to get rid of the heat - and that isn't very efficient at low temps.
        • We need something to convert the solar energy to electricity, perhaps some form of death clock^H^H^H^H^H^H "solar panel". We can then channel this electricty and emit it in a single direction, using a device which I'll call a "laser". This can then be beamed down to earth and used to heat grits.
      • Empty space IE a hard vacume has no temperature, but There is no Hard vacume in this solar system, and if light readings are any indication the rest of the universe is gradually becoming a soft vacume as well.
        As a matter of fact, the actual temperature at Low earth orbit is quite literally far beyond the melting point of any metal we have, Fortunately there is SO little matter that they can't actually melt anything. And in fact, the temperature is superheated by the fact that there is so much radiation, and so little place for that energy to go once it's in the few particles of gas that make up a soft vacume.
        Cooling is indeed a problem, however, as the only method of cooling is to vent waste air or fluid, which becomes a potential threat to future low earth orbit satelites, as it retains all the potential energy, and the mass that doesn't boil into gas will freeze, because of the potential energy being ripped away by the effect of a near freezing temeperature boiling point (for water) in a near vacume. of course, venting also contributes a lot of kinetic energy into the droplets of ice, so they aren't easy to recapture...
        This is why the moon is ideal for a permanent space presence, because there may be a LOT of ice at the poles, from comet and metoerite impacts, and the ice would serve both as a source of fresh water, and as cooling. habitats could be burried under the natural radiation shield of the moon's surface, although some research wouldn't be applicable, since it needs the microgravity of a low earth orbit to develop.
    • Khan: "Ah Kirk, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? It is very cold in space."

      Kind of detracts from my point, but I still needed to clarify that quote.

  • Sweeet! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shafe ( 72598 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @07:48AM (#4676137) Homepage
    Jeez, you guys are so damn pessimistic. You're missing the whole point. Some teams will spend more than $10 million, the prize, to compete in this project. The objective is to find a cheap and easy way to get to space! Such a fantastic goal! And you all keep whining about safety.

    Grow some balls.
    • Imagine what kind of blow this sort of program will take if they DO cut corners and some idiot blows not only himself to hell but manages to twirl and whirl his way into a
      Pick One:

      A. Major City
      B. Military Base
      C. Martha Stewarts summer home. .

      oh wait. . no. . cutting corners is seeming like a better and better idea

  • Cheap rockets = Kids' Satellite kits? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If this is cheap enough, maybe they can bring extra cargo aboard the rocket, so maybe 10+ years in the future, little kids will be buying "Satellite Kits". Build your own sattelite and bring it aboard the Canadian Arrow or Armadillo! Only $100 per kilogram! Take pictures of the moon! Take pictures of Earth from orbit! Get Your Kit Today! I can't wait. Mmmm... my own satellite... Hopefully!

  • cut corners on safety (Score:5, Interesting)

    by isorox ( 205688 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @07:52AM (#4676148) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, when columbus set sail the wrong way round the world, he made sure he took every safety precaution.

    Safety is very important, but when it reaches a certain point its ridiculous. Attitudes like that will confine us to $10,000/pound low orbit flights for the next 500 years.
    • Yeah. You're right. Absolutely fucking right. What a waste of money.

      I suggest we cut the crap and launch you as guinnea pig for the NASA's first cheap-on-safety-flight.
    • Hmm, yes, which is why he made it back with one ship after running the Santa Maria into a reef, and the Nina mutinying and taking off on its own. And starting with wrong assumption that the Earth was half the circumference that had been known since at least the Greeks.

      Beats me why Columbus is always used as an example of successful exploration. (He did end up arrested in irons within, what, eight years?)

  • Pamela Anderson-Lee (Score:3, Funny)

    by LUN!X ( 621212 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @07:54AM (#4676152) Homepage
    How about Pamela Anderson? Zero-G boobs already primed [paradise.net.nz] and ready for test flight! Plus she's probably the best-known Canadian world-wide ... I'd suuuuure like to be the guy auditioning all those wannabe asstronauts if she walked in the room.
    I'd dim the lights just a touch and in she walks... beautiful delicious Canadian flesh, right there in front of me! The strapless evening-wear would probably burst at that point, and I'd jump her then and there in front of all the lesser dudes on the committee. Oooohh. Powerrrr.
    somebody slap me
    coffee. i need coffee

    • Hep-C (Score:2, Funny)

      by Knunov ( 158076 )
      I think Pam lost a lot of her sex appeal when she contracted a DEADLY, CONTAGIOUS VIRUS.

      In her (immune system's) defense, as one late show commentator said, "If you are married to Tommy Lee and all you walk away with is Hepatitis-C, you did O.K.!"

      Rad bod or not, I like my liver more than PamAn.

      Knunov
    • Shania is much sexier than Pam Anderson (she's dropped the Lee, I think, no?) I won't even mention Celine Dion ...

      D'oh!

    • That was disturbing.
  • What fun it would be to get involved with such a project. Unfortunately for me, I have not the intellect to contribute in any useful way (other than getting lunch and coffee).

    But it certainly looks like a blast (pun intended).

  • Carmack (Score:4, Informative)

    by halftrack ( 454203 ) <jonkje@gQUOTEmail.com minus punct> on Friday November 15, 2002 @08:36AM (#4676275) Homepage
    "Let's hope that the X-Prize foundations 'end of 2004' deadline doesn't inspire people to cut corners on safety."

    Some might, but the seriouse competitors won't (Canadian Arrow is serious, at least with PR and blowing someone up in space, well ...) This goes especially for John Carmack and Armadillo. They've stated that their taking it step by step building small first, then build larger things and IIRC their not registered for the $10.000.000 X-Prize contest.

    • Re:Carmack (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AndroidCat ( 229562 )
      IIRC their not registered for the $10.000.000 X-Prize contest

      Why, yes they are: Armadillo at X Prize [xprize.org].

      Burt Rutan's entry with "Undisclosed Rocket Power" sounds interesting... [xprize.org]

    • I noticed that they have certain important safety features:

      from the web site: The Canadian Arrow is aerodynamically stable throughout the entire flight, and even with loss of active guidance the vehicle would continue on a ballistic trajectory. The first stage carries a range safety device that can be detonated to ensure down range safety.

      ... I can see it now... "Er, sorry 'boat this, but could wannofya push that red button, eh?"

  • From the arrow page [astronaut.ca]:

    The rocket motor is a reproduction V2 engine, capable of 57,000 lbs of thrust, burning a mixture of alcohol and liquid oxygen.

    This is the first time I hear of alcohol being used to launch a rocket to space.

    • Old news. Before the tricky details of handling LH were worked out, alcohol was frequently used.

      To hell with launching, just give me the rocket, a tanker of orange juice and dump truck full of limes. Oh, and a big straw.

    • This is the first time I hear of alcohol being used to launch a rocket to space.

      Surprises me you've never heard of this before, it's actually quite common, I do it myself every now and again, and so do most of my friends, haven't you? See you simply drink and drink and drink and drink until the rocket launches itself... :)

      I recommend Guinness for fuel personally. :)
    • The A-4 rocket on which this one is based actually did use alcohol and liquid oxygen for fuel. Alcohol isn't that hard to make, so designing a ballistic missile that uses readily-available (more so than others, I imagine) during a major war was a wise decision. Wernher von Braun was many things, but "idiot" wasn't one of them.

      However, the A-4 can't launch anything very heavy into space -- it wasn't designed to be able to. It couldn't even when made into a two-stage rocket for the WAC-Corporal program. One of its descendants finally did, though -- the Jupiter-C rocket, a modified Redstone (itself an A-4 derivative) launched Explorer 1 (the first US satellite) into space in January 1958. But Explorer 1 was not all that massive.

      So the Canadian Arrow rocket is just going to end up re-creating Alan Shepard's flight, more or less. Rather just, I think, considering that he was launched by a Redstone missile.

  • Space tourism? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jmcwork ( 564008 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @08:40AM (#4676295)
    The Canadian web site says that an upswing in space tourism will force down the cost of space travel. They use, as an example, the growth of the PC industry and the diminishing cost of hardware. I would love to do it, but I do not see the general public rushing to get launched into space as easily as they walk into Best Buy to get a PC to play Wolfenstein. Also, when I hear the term 'tourism' I think of places to go, different things to do, etc. Other than the trip itself, what is there to do? (Like driving all the way to Wallyworld and not being able to get inside.)
    • Unlike playing Wolfenstein, being an astrotourist probably really gets the chicks. (Don't know why -- a Wolfenstein player can keep going for days, but an astrotourist is only good for a few minutes of thrust. :^P
    • Aside from checking out the incredible views of Earth, I would have thought that there was at least one perfectly obvious activity to try....
  • hella cool and all. But they're of course giving preference to people with some related knowledge or experience...
    Oh, and they have to be physically fit too. That cuts out most of the /. crew (lazy bastards that we are...)
    Oh, and it may cost the successful applicant a few thousand dollars.
    Here's [cbc.ca] a story about it on CBC.

  • Shoulda had a V2 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @08:42AM (#4676306)
    Wow... it's simply an updated V2. I think that's a brilliant idea. Those rockets hit the edge of space almost 60 years ago, so the technology is certainly easy to attain today. Plus, that design is probably more bug-free than something fresh off the drawing boards today.
    • Except for the switch to liquid hydrogen, most liquid fuel rockets are descendants of the V-2. I mean it's not like it's rocket sci^w^w nuclear physics or anything.

      Safe, conventional designs, off the shelf, but that means that you'll still need something the size of an Atlas to actually put something into orbit. Hopefully some of the other teams are trying something new.

      • Re:Shoulda had a V2 (Score:3, Informative)

        by karlm ( 158591 )
        Umm.. the V2 didn't use regenerative cooling but instead tried to keep a thin film of liquid fuel coating the combustion chamber for evapoative cooling. Sometimes they got hot spots and the film dissapeared in a spot, resulting in cooling loss at the hot spot. They had some problems with burning/melting holes in combustion chambers.

        Almost all modern liquid fuel engines use regenerative cooling (a technology developed by amateurs in the US, IRRC).

        On the other hand, the V2s used pendular integrating gyroscopic acceleromiters (PIGAs) to shut off the fuel supply once the V2 hit a certain velocity. (One nice thing about PIGAs is you can put a counter on one of the bearings to irectly measure velocity instead of having to integrate acceleration yourself.) PIGAs are still used the US MX ICBMs. A couple of summers ago I worked on some replacement technology, but PIGAs are still the most accurate acceleromiters that can withstand the hundreds of Gs encountered on rentry. (They're also pretty resistant to EMP and radiation degredation from being stored long term near a sphere of plutonium.)

        BTW, if you should ever fire electrolytic capicitors out of a 105 mm howitzer, be aware that thier capaitence will go out of spec before they leave the barrel and not get back into spec for a few days afterward.

        • Sorry to burst your bubble, but There aren't 'hundreds of Gs on rentry.' Anything over 5 Gs is pretty dangerous, with anything over 10 Gs meaning Certain Death. G-forces are Usually highest at Launch, and in fact the Space Shuttle only generates 3-Gs as this article points out [howstuffworks.com]
          In fact, to achieve 100 Gs you would have to drive around the texas motor speedway corners at 1,056 miles per hour. Those are some mean turns, there. And remember just because the space shuttle can achieve a speed of 17,500 mph, doesn't mean it can make a 750 foot radius turn at that speed (which at 27,450 Gs would tear the shuttle to itty bits, and make puree out of the crew inside).
          Just for comparison sake, the G forces of accelerating, in a Straight line, at the speed of light is a mere 267 Gs. However, traveling around the curve at the Texas motor speedway at the speed of light would generate 3,110,837.4 Gs.
          Obviously, the tighter the curve you're making the higher the G forces.
          Hope this helped, and BTW, I used the speed that light travels in this solar system, not the theoretical speed in a pure vacume.
          • Sorry to burst your bubble, but There aren't 'hundreds of Gs on rentry.' Anything over 5 Gs is pretty dangerous, with anything over 10 Gs meaning Certain Death.

            what bubble is that? 10g is trouble for humans, but he was talking about ICBMs. would you ride one of those?
          • Sorry to burst your bubble, but There aren't 'hundreds of Gs on rentry.' Anything over 5 Gs is pretty dangerous, with anything over 10 Gs meaning Certain Death.

            Ehh... the best firgter pilots can take 10 Gs for a few seconds before passing out (with G suits). Those guys in the famous rocket sled experiments took many more Gs for fractions of a second.

            Note that I was talking about peak forces on nuclear warheads. Yes, if we made piloted nuclear missles, we'd need to give them more gentle flight paths.

            When was the last time you heard a kidsay "I want to be a nuclear missle pilot when I grow up, just like you daddy"? There are several reasons we don't put cockpits on ICBMs. :-P

      • Except for the switch to liquid hydrogen, most liquid fuel rockets are descendants of the V-2. I mean it's not like it's rocket sci^w^w nuclear physics or anything.
        I'm fairly certain that most rockets designed after the V2 used a combination of steerable main and/or auxilliary engines for control. This is actually a return to the V2 control system, using the same system of carbon vanes in the exhaust that the V2 used.

        As aside, most of the 'Rocket science' complexity is actually done away with in this design. Simply having a fixed mount for the engine cuts out a LOT of complexity. And reducing the complexity will definitely reduce the cost.

  • Ack! JATO's! Don't We Know.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Myriad ( 89793 ) <myriad@thebsod.cNETBSDom minus bsd> on Friday November 15, 2002 @09:01AM (#4676423) Homepage
    Yipes, don't these people know what happens when you go slapping JATO rockets onto things [cains.com]?

    Sheesh. Some people never learn! :)

  • Firestar [amazon.com], Rogue Star [amazon.com], Lode Star [amazon.com], and Falling Stars [amazon.com].

    Central part of plot is a corporation developing aircraft that can fly into orbit, at commercially viable cost. Good hard sci-fi reads!
  • Here's a news story [canoe.ca] about it. (Which was in my submission yesterday. Whine, whine :^)

  • Does anyone else find it fishy... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Peter T Ermit ( 577444 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @09:49AM (#4676772)
    ... that the job application [astronaut.ca] requires a non-refundable $75 fee?
    • Yes... and the "secure" application that requests among other things, your credit card number, does not show as a secure page. I'd beware of this. It looks like a scam to me. There has definitely been a lot of technology improvment since the 1930's when the V2 was developed... I don't see anything that leads me to believe that there will be incorporation of new materials, fuels, etc.

      grimzap
    • And that it's $95 CDN, or $75 US? (at current exchange rates $75 US is about $118 CDN). That could be explained away by saying that it cost more to process non-Canadian applications, however they don't differentiate by nationality, but simply by currency.

      Another poster mentioned that they say secure server but it's not, and he is correct: The link they give is to a completely plaintext, totally insecure link. Some moron forgot the s (i.e. https://secure.golden.net/cdnastro/online-pilot-ap p.htm when they linked it on their page), and another moron didn't configure the "secure." subdomain to prohibit non-SSL. Tragedy of errors.

      I grew up in the town where this project is based, but I have to say that something smells incredibly fishy about this...non-refundable "dream" applications for a pipe-dream? If anyone is actually sending in money, please be aware that I have a really big bridge for sale.
  • The Canadian Arrow X-Prize team is taking applications for its X Prize attempt.

    Huh? The Arrow may have been an advanced jet, but it wouldn't be able to fly in space for the X Prize.
    • There was actually hope that the Arrow would be able to act as a space delivery system though. They would fly to the edge of space, invert and launch the payload on a booster rocket, then return to earth.

      BTW, there's a pretty good (scores high on the geek movie scale) movie about the development and downfall of the Avro Arrow program, starring Dan Aykroyd. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0118641
  • 2002-11-12 18:05:20 Canadian X Prize Contenders seeking Civilian Astro (articles,space) (rejected)

    A full three days ago even!

  • Has Mr. Carmack learned nothing (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Friday November 15, 2002 @10:18AM (#4676987)
    from all these years developing Doom and Quake?

    Rickety experimental space-craft *always* wind up deserting the occupant on an alien planet infested with demons and high powered weapons.

    For the pilots sake, I hope he makes sure to equip every craft with atleast a chainsaw.

  • Recruiting from /. crowd (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Not gonna happen. Ever. The cost of fuel would make
    flight to space impossible.

  • I didn't know that Carmack's Armadillo was a GPL rocket downloadable from sourceforge. Clicking on the Armadillo link sends me to sourceforge.net, not an obvious rocket-associated page, thus I assume the "rocket" is a game similation. Sim-space-tourism?


    Or is it merely a plugin for The Sims?

    • Errr, no.

      IIRC, the project is the software that Carmack uses for the rocket telemetry and possible the engine throttling software as well, a really cool package of the actual tools that they're being really upfront about using.

      Suprising to see how open Armadillo is in comparison to most of the other teams with once or twice a year updates, usually to the effect, 'uhhh, we actually aren't any further along'

      The XCor folks certainly seem to have a good amount of engine testing complete, but I'm curious about their control systems and launch vehicle...

      I'd put the Arrow, Armadillo and XCor teams at the forefront of the pack... the rest don't seem to be on track.
  • Isnt this [astronaut.ca] pic showing the manned module (propelled by 4 jato-type rockets) disengaging from first stage while still on the ground.

    Someone needs to re-explain the whatnots of this proposal to the artist who build this artist's impression... don t we think?

  • This is my favorite Canadian XPrize entry [xprize.org]. Simple and efficient. Have a look.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Close