Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

New XCOR Rocket Engine Passes First Test 135

Posted by timothy from the please-stand-clear dept.
apsmith writes "XCOR Aerospace just successfully test-fired their new liquid oxygen/kerosene rocket engine. This is significantly more powerful than the engines used in the XCOR EZ-Rocket vehicle, and will be further developed for use in the Xerus suborbital vehicle. XCOR is one of the serious X-Prize contenders, and partly funded by John Carmack of Id and Armadillo Aerospace (Carmack's in-his-free-time X-prize contender)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New XCOR Rocket Engine Passes First Test More

New XCOR Rocket Engine Passes First Test

Comments Filter:

  • Cost Effective? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hayzeus ( 596826 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:04PM (#5645599) Homepage
    So, will this be a cost effective way to launch Lance Bass into space?

    Note that omitting a reentry vehicle could substantially save on fuel costs.

    • "So, will this be a cost effective way to launch Lance Bass into space?"

      Absolutely. We'd all contribute to that fund. The real question is whether or not it'd be a cost effective way to send anything else into space.
    • Dunno about Lance Bass, but give me a sufficiently well-built environment-suit - something like a 'mini-shuttle', just for me, and I'd be quite happy to strap on a couple of these rockets and blast off into wherever it takes me.

      I don't understand why the spacesuit guys don't team up with the rocket guys and just combine the two into something small and feasible, designed to get *just one body* into orbit.

      Who needs a cockpit? Just give me a good suit with rockets on it.

  • That's one small boost for man,.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:06PM (#5645613)
    ...and one step closer to getting me off this rock.

  • What do you reckon.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by nath_o_brien ( 608347 ) <nath@nathans-domain-name.org.uk> on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:06PM (#5645615) Homepage

    ...their new liquid oxygen/kerosene rocket engine

    What do you reckon the chances are of me being able to get hold of one of these babies for my car?

  • Uhrm... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm as likely to ride on something called "EZ-Rocket" as I am on "Valujet". Isn't rocket science supposed to be... uhrm, rocket science?
    • The name of the EZ rocket was likely borrowed from the name of the aircraft in which the motor was installed. Long EZ. Big brother to the Vari EZ. Both designed by a man named Burt Rutan, also known for designing a little plane called the Voyager. Flew the longest closed circuit un-refueled flight a few years back (that'd be Edwards AFB -> Edwards AFB, the Long way around). In other news, I was able to see a test-firing of the alcohol version of the rocket a couple years ago. Very cool stuff. The

  • Only one word to describe this news... (Score:3)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:07PM (#5645628) Homepage Journal
    X-ellent!!!

  • I can hear it now (Score:3, Funny)

    by novakane007 ( 154885 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:09PM (#5645641) Homepage Journal
    "Geeks! In Space!!!"

  • Danger??? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by st0rmcold ( 614019 )

    I'm no scientist, but I am aware that liquid oxygen or LOX as it's reffered tho happens to be compressed oxygen (approx. 4000 times the amount that in the air), and this will dramatically increase the speed that a shuttle will be incinerated during a disaster, as the LOX will feed the explosions.

    With advancements comes risk in my opinion.

    Anybody who knows more then me, would be able to soothe my thoughts and tell me someone on such a shuttle would have a chance of survival is this were to leak?
    • To me it is kind of like the difference between droping a 10 ton rock on you or a 50 ton rock. Either way you are dead. the 50 ton rock doesn't make you deader. If 'regular' rocket fuel caught fire the mission is toast no real chance for escape, same with the LOX

    • Re:Danger??? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A good part of the big orange fuel tank on the shuttle is already filled with liquid oxygen. The other part is filled with liquid hydrogen. They both explode real well, excessively well when mixed together (which is why they work as rocket fuel.) It's pretty hard to have a rocket without explosive fuel. A rocket is basically a (barely) controlled explosion.

    • Re:Danger??? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Migraineman ( 632203 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:32PM (#5645820)
      Oxygen, by itself, won't hurt you. If the O2 tank leaks, you end up breathing a slightly more oxygen-rich atmosphere. The EZ-Rocket carries the O2 tank in place of the passenger seat, primarily because it won't kill the pilot if it vents.

      The fuel (alcohol in earlier prototypes, kerosene for this one) is carried in a separate tank slung below the fuselage. It's outside the aircraft frame.

      If you've taken fire safety training, you know that there are three components that are required for a fire - fuel, oxidizer, and heat. Remove any one, and you don't have a fire. When you're fueling you car, the gasonline doesn't spontaneously ignite with the oxygen in the air, right? Add heat and you've got a fire, though.

      So, if you keep the fuel, oxidizer and heat in controlled environments, you'll survive the flight just fine. If the O2 tank ruptures, you should probably worry more about schrapnel or the overpressure.
      • >> When you're fueling you car, the gasonline doesn't spontaneously ignite with the oxygen in the air, right? Add heat and you've got a fire, though

        Sometimes it does [esdjournal.com], and it doesnt require heat so much as a source of ignition, which could (and has) come from something as innocuous as a cell phone or PDA. Granted, there's heat produced
        in the spark, but my point is people seem to think you need an open flame to ignite gasoline.

        Refueling fires are something that's going to become more and more of a p
        • Self serve stations have been the standard for the past 25 years here. I doubt that the number of fueling fires is going to increase - it's at equilibrium.

        • Re:Danger??? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jandrese ( 485 )
          Refueling fires are in the category of freak accidents these days and almost everybody uses self serve (except in those states were it's illegal for some reason). Cars dissipate static electiricty fairly quickly, and the no-smoking rule is a no brainer.

          In other words, don't be stupid when refueling, but you don't have to be totally paranoid either. A touch of commmon sense reduces the chance of an accident to "act of god" probabilites.
          • It's illegal in some states because of the danger. Self serve gas stations are a huge cash saver for the big oil companies, not just because they save the minimum wages for the attendent, but because they transfer liability to the consumers.

            Saying "dont be stupid when refueling" is useless, because people are stupid and cavalier about it.

            When I had a boat and would pull up to a marina, they wouldnt start fueling until everyone was out of the craft, and had some sensible but rigorously enforced safety rul
      • Or oxygen poisoning. Oxygen isn't the harmless substance many seem to think it is: it's quite toxic even to us. Too much will blind you then kill you (there may be some other effects involved as well) and it doesn't take all that much more than than the ~3 lb/sqin (partial pressue) we currently breath, though I'm not sure what level at which oxygen becomes harful to us.

        • Re:Danger??? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:14PM (#5646169) Journal
          Oxygen Poisoning info [rescuediver.org]

          It looks like oxygen toxicity begins at about 10 times sea-level partial pressure of oxygen (article cites 29 lb/sqin). How stuff works [howstuffworks.com] explains that the process is very dependent on both pressure (not % of atmosphere!) and time. Early astronauts used 100% oxygen atmospheres at a low pressure without any problems.
          • Early astronauts used 100% oxygen atmospheres at a low pressure without any problems.

            Except being torched.
            I know you meant toxicity-wise, but jeez, that was a dumb accident [nasa.gov].
            • In that incident the astonaughts were in one full ATM of oxygen. When in space the astronaughts would fly at the standard partial pressure of oxygen (about .1 atm or so, I forget). In zero-G at least, adding .9 atm nitorgen to the .1 atm oxygen won't make the slightest diffenrece to how things burn. Its only when you increaste the partial pressure of oxygen that things get...interesting.

          • Re:Danger??? (Score:5, Informative)

            by rossifer ( 581396 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @04:41PM (#5647542) Journal
            Actually, if you were a scuba diver and used oxygen enriched breathing mixes (aka Nitrox), you'd know that the risk of a CNS OxTox hit (a central nervous system seizure due to oxygen toxicity) significantly separates from zero at a ppO2 between 1.6ata and 2.0ata... pretty far from 10.0ata.

            Much of my scuba diving is limited by this number. I usually dive EAN32 (32%O2 68%N2) for my recreational diving, and at 128fsw (the local pressure equivalent to a column of salt water 128 feet tall with 1ata on the top), the ppO2 is 1.6ata. That's the MOD (Maximum Operating Depth). Don't go deeper than that. Even accidentally. So I limit my dives on EAN32 to 110feet to stay away from that invisible boundary where risk starts to accumulate.

            You're right that whether you get hit is variable on pressure and time, it also depends on the individual's body, how fit they are, how rested they are, if they've done recent exertion and lots of other variables we don't understand. You can be tested (in a hyperbaric chamber) and make it to 4.0ata for an hour on one run and then a month later get a CNS hit on the way past 2.0 at the start of the run.

            Also, a CNS hit isn't really harmful itself. When you're lying down in a hyperbaric chamber and you get hit, you go into a mild convulsion, lose conciousness, they drop the pressure, you wake up none the worse for wear. What hurts is when you need to be concious to keep doing something important (like keep the breathing regulator in your mouth on a scuba dive, or like continue to pilot the vehicle).

            Finally, there is another kind of injury from elevated oxygen levels, where your lungs get burned from long exposures (long is hours and days, depending on how elevated the pressure is). This is why when you're in the hospital and need extra O2, they don't put you in an pure O2 environment and leave you there. The tissue in your lungs degrades and that injury can eventually be more serious than whatever you were on the supplemental O2 for. This is sometimes called Systemic OxTox, though it has a few names.

            In either case, as others have mentioned, you're more likely to be burned by the LOX freezing your skin or the shrapnel from the bursting container than by breathing the extra O2. It also may not help the situation that the suddenly reduced temps in the cockpit cause all of the windows to frost up just as you're losing engine power...

            Regards,
            Ross
      • The EZ-Rocket carries the O2 tank in place of the passenger seat, primarily because it won't kill the pilot if it vents.

        Well, what if they frezee to death?
        • > Well, what if they frezee to death?

          In the incredibly unlikely event that LOX vents into the cockpit, Just crack open the canopy for a bit. The EZ-Rocket is a subsonic vehicle limited by the do-not-exceed speed of the airframe (about 195 knots) so you're not going all that fast, especially when gliding.

          Also, there is a large manual lever the pilot can pull to dump the LOX out the back. We've actually done this on a safe abort flight, to lighten the airplane for an early landing. (go here [xcor.com] for detai

    • Re:Danger??? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:38PM (#5645868)
      I'm no scientist, but I am aware that liquid oxygen or LOX as it's reffered tho happens to be compressed oxygen (approx. 4000 times the amount that in the air), and this will dramatically increase the speed that a shuttle will be incinerated during a disaster, as the LOX will feed the explosions.

      The current shuttle uses liquid oxygen, by the way, along with(surprise) liquid hydrogen. Together they fuel the orbiter's engines. The boosters on the side are solid-fuel motors and once they're lit, they don't go out until the fuel's burned.

      Incidentally, every rocket fuel of one kind or another has to have some oxidizer, or it won't work in space(think that one through.) Most rockets for non-space applications have oxidizers, too, because it's hard to get oxygen from the air mixed in with fuel fast/well enough to be useful(this is why ramjets were so 'neat', they don't need to carry oxidizer, but can generate enormous amounts of thrust at incredible speeds.)

      The orbiter also uses hydrazine for the auxiliary power units and firing thrusters(I think), and a half dozen other things that go 'boom' or are very nasty. That's the whole point behind rocket fuel- burning it has to release a LOT of energy for its weight.

      • Re:Danger??? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Thag ( 8436 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:12PM (#5646133) Homepage
        Incidentally, every rocket fuel of one kind or another has to have some oxidizer, or it won't work in space(think that one through.)

        Most do, but not all. Hydrogen Peroxide is often used by itself as a monopropellant rocket fuel, for instance: just run it past a platinum screen and it reacts all on its own, no air required. However, it doesn't put out nearly as much thrust as kerosene and LOX.

        Jon Acheson
        • Most do, but not all. Hydrogen Peroxide is often used by itself as a monopropellant rocket fuel, for instance: just run it past a platinum screen and it reacts all on its own, no air required.

          At the risk of achieving my first-ever negative mod, let me point out that "oxidizer" doesn't mean "air," and doesn't even mean oxygen. It just means something that will strip electrons from the fuel source (just like 2H +O2 --> 2H+ plus O2-- ; and sorry about no superscripts there).
          BTW IIRC the platinum is just

      • Incidentally, every rocket fuel of one kind or another has to have some oxidizer, or it won't work in space(think that one through.)

        Not quite. Recall that rockets work by throwing fluid away. There is a class of rockets, such as solar or nuclear heated propellent or ion or plasma drives, that don't require oxidisers.

    • There has to be some oxidizer in a rocket. Otherwise it would be a jet and would not be able to leave the confines of the atmosphere. The other option besides carrying an oxidizers such as oxygen is to carry a fuel that serves both as fuel and oxidizer such as peroxide (H2O2). I belive that this group was actually planning to use peroxide as a fuel, but couldn't find a source.

    • Propelants / Re:Danger??? (Score:5, Informative)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:51PM (#5645957) Journal

      Challenger... I rest my case.

      LOX (Liquid OXygen) is used because it is both cheap, freely avilable and less dangerous than most other oxidisers. For more info on propelants in general, see here [astronautix.com]. For LOX + kerosene in particular, the link is here [astronautix.com]. Off course, if you want to get away from the nasty cryogenic oxidicers, you could always go for hydrogenperoxside and kerosene (se data here [astronautix.com]). Off course, H2O2 is more expencive and way more poisonous than LOX, but it's give and take... In large quantities, 95 per cent hydrogen peroxide then cost approximately $1.00 per kg - LOX on the other hand cost about 0.08$ per kg. Or you could get exotic and use Liquid Fluorine and Kerosene wich gives a Isp: 322.00 sl. compared to a Isp: 300.00 sl. for LOX/Kerosene (se data here [astronautix.com]) - but then LF was kosting 6.00$ in 1959, and I don't think the price has dropped.

      So in short, LOX has a few drawbacks, but the benefits of using it outweights them. Oh, and Encyclopedia Astronautica [astronautix.com] is a good place to find this sort of info.

    • Anybody who knows more then me, would be able to soothe my thoughts and tell me someone on such a shuttle would have a chance of survival is this were to leak?

      Given the track record of the US shuttle (0 survivors out of 2 explosions, one actually involving LOX), I'd say none.
    • Almost any chemeical rocket fuel will explode in a catastrophic failure. That's an unavoidable fact of chemeical rocketry. There is no "safe" rocket fuel, not even hydrogen peroxide, which is often used without an oxidizer. Even a steam powered rocket is deadly when scaled up large enough to be practical.

      The only way to mitigate the danger is to design the system to be as foolproof as possible.
    • LOX isn't compressed oxygen, it's liquid. It's also VERY cold. Almost -300 degrees F. If the tank ruptures in the cockpit, the pilot may have to worry about being frozen (a' la Terminator 2) as well as any fire hazard or shrapnel.

      Hydrogen Peroxide or any other monopropellant decomposes (energetically) as opposed to "burning".

      A propellant leak can be VERY dangerous, or it can be benign, depending on the location and severity of the leak. If a valve has a slight leak, it may not be much of a problem. I
    • and this will dramatically increase the speed that a shuttle will be incinerated during a disaster ...?

      So it's better that a shuttle incinerates slowly...

  • Educational uses (Score:3, Funny)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:13PM (#5645678) Homepage Journal
    We are very excited about the new engine since it moves us closer to our goal of a reliable and economical vehicle for space tourism as well as educational and commercial uses.

    I'm particularly fascinated by the educational uses. How long until high school teachers fire real rockets to demonstrate Newton's third law? That'd be the day! No more boredom in school :)

    • How long until high school teachers fire real rockets to demonstrate Newton's third law?
      Dang, and I thought it was bad when my teacher hucked an eraser at me. DOOM has changed everything.
      --

      • Re:Educational uses (Score:4, Funny)

        by worst_name_ever ( 633374 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:18PM (#5646205)
        Dang, and I thought it was bad when my teacher hucked an eraser at me.

        When I was in school, I actually had a physics professor who brought in a .22-caliber rifle and fired it at a swinging metal pendulum, in order to demonstrate transfer of momentum. None of us in the class were prepared for this, and were somewhat alarmed when this batty old guy pulled the rifle out from behind his desk and started shooting. I think he retired after that semester.

    • We actually have proposed educational uses just like that for our 15-lb thrust N2O-Ethane engine. Sort of a kit that can be assembled and tested by teacher and students. Such a project requires funding, however, and we have not gotten the requisite interest yet.

      --Mike
      XCOR Aerospace
      • We did the same thing with a wheeled chair and a fire extinguisher. They even had races across the gym. Didn't require much in the way of funding, demonstrated the 3rd law nicely.

      • Mike -- If your company is really interested in developing an educational project and are simply lacking the funding to begin the project, drop me a note (taylorja at clarkson dot edu). I'm a faculty member in the Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering department and would be willing to try to help out.

    • XCOR have a 'tea cart' engine that they ran indoors at the conference center of Space Access a couple of years ago; with full permission from the fire martials. There was talk of demoing it at schools, but I don't know what happened about that.

    • How long until high school teachers fire real rockets to demonstrate Newton's third law?

      We did this in my highschool geometry class using model rockets. We had several observers at known distances from the launch site who measured the angle of the rocket when it reached it's highest point. We then used the data to calculate the altitude of the rocket.

      Model rockets are very widely available toys, and a lot of fun for junior and senior geeks alike. Me and my brothers built and played with them all the

    • How long until North Korea officially stops selling missiles and becomes the world's biggest supplier of educational materials? =

  • how's it work? (Score:4, Funny)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:18PM (#5645723)
    their new liquid oxygen/ kerosene rocket engine.

    When it runs low on pressure, do you have to pump the little plunger a zillion times until you're back to full-blast?

    (if you haven't been camping and used a coleman lantern, you won't get this.)

    • Dude! I remember pumping the lantern! The other question is... what do the astronauts do when the mantle breaks?

    • their new liquid oxygen/ kerosene rocket engine.

      When it runs low on pressure, do you have to pump the little plunger a zillion times until you're back to full-blast?

      Coleman fuel is more like gasoline than kerosene...note that some of the newer stoves and lanterns can run on unleaded. You could run the older ones on unleaded as well, as long as you didn't mind that the generator wouldn't last as long.

      One time while cutting the grass, the mower ran out of gas. Rather than lug a jerry-can to a gas

  • Name... (Score:4, Funny)

    by plexxer ( 214589 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:33PM (#5645825)
    I hope he names the final design the BFR-3000.
  • First tests are easy, now ye must answer me these questions three!

    What is your name?
    What is your quest?
    What is the power of lobbyists for the current technology?
  • I have no problems with people shootin rockets this way and that, as long as its no where near me.
    Amateur rocketry usually leads to one thing (think "smoking empty boots sitting at the bottom of a large crater"), and I don't want to get hit with the shrapnel.
    • I know you were just making a joke, but actually IIRC amateur rocketry is sfaer statistically than most other hobbies. Less hobby-related deaths/injuries than golf, for instance. Go figure.

  • This is High Technology. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4ginandtonics ( 455958 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @01:57PM (#5645994)
    Oh my this is impressive.


    Close study of the Igniter [xcor.com] shows that a key component is a Champion Y-8 Spark Plug?


    This is Rocket Science, man!

    • They should just drop in a SplitFire [splitfire.com] and get an instant 50% performance boost!

    • Re:This is High Technology. (Score:5, Informative)

      by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:13PM (#5646148)
      We tried many so-called "high performance" igniters and that was the one that worked the best. The 400 lb-thrust LOX-Alcohol engines on our EZ-Rocket use a spark plug from a go-ped. We only need a very small spark plug. The plug ignites an igniter engine, which is basically a miniature rocket engine inside the big rocket engine. After the igniter is lit, main propellants are allowed in to the chamber for main ignition. One of the key advantages to our engines is a safety interlock system to prevent main propellants from pooling in the main chamber before ignition, which is a primary cause of explosions, or "hard starts" as they are referred to in the industry. We have had thousands of runs without any hard starts.

      --Mike

    • Actually one of the basic design approaches these x-price contenders are doing is using off-the-shelf components. The automotive industry has been exploding vapors for decades, so it's logical that a spark plug would be well engineered.

      Armadillo also uses this approach, they're using standard NOS injectors to feed the peroxide into the engine.

      NASA stuff is so expensive because they develop everything in-house. That's good when you need absolute quality control, but it skyrockets the price.

      Travis
    • Heh why not? NASA is going the same way in some area's; they built a VTOL prototype aircraft using mostly off-the-shelf RC airplane components. In fact there were hardly any special components in the prototype; they even published the drawings in an RC magazine so the readers could build the aircraft themselves!
    • Is the best approach.

      Spark plugs are a proven, reliable, and mature technology.
  • We could give a new meaning to "launching a presidential campaign".

    But seriously folks, 1800 lbs of thrust just does not seem very manly when compared to the Saturn V F1's [boeing.com] 1.5 million lbs of studly thrustosterone. Ugh - more power!

    • But seriously folks, 1800 lbs of thrust just does not seem very manly when compared to the Saturn V F1's 1.5 million lbs of studly thrustosterone. Ugh - more power!

      Well, consider that the Saturn V weighed about 6.7 million pounds [wikipedia.org], and the rocket used five F1 engines providing a total of 7.5 million pounds of thrust, then the net upward force is actually only 800,000 pounds, or 160,000 pounds per F1 engine. So about 9/10ths of the thrust is used just to counteract the weight of the rocket itself (at least

  • This will boost the demand for XM Satellite radio, since it will be the only radio frequency to reach the moon

  • important correction (Score:5, Informative)

    by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:18PM (#5646213)
    We are not currently an X-Prize contender. If the X-Prize is still available when our Suborbital vehicle is complete, it is conceivable that it could be modified to meet the requirements of the X-Prize. XCOR is more focused on the immediate possibility of revenue generating service from the Xerus spaceplane.

    For more information about our Suborbital program, visit our suborbital page at:
    http://www.xcor.com/suborbital.html :)
    --Mike Massee
    XCOR Aerospace
  • "partly funded by John Carmack of Id and Armadillo Aerospace (Carmack's in-his-free-time X-prize contender)."

    Cool, but where is Doom III?

  • Lox with kerosene. Sounds incredibly powerful, and cheap and easy to get as well. I doubt carmack will be able to beat them with his' team's Hydrogen Peroxide engines.

    Any stats on the energy/gram of that stuff?
  • one more cost effective way to build and power a rocket engine.

    I have heard of a company that was trying to use solid/liquid rocket technology that used regular rubber as the fuel source and liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. The pictures of it were like the space shuttle solid rocket booster .

    What happened to that company ? anyone know ?

  • Beam me up Scotty.... nope, technically impossible

    Blow me up Scotty.... nope, not desireable

    Blast me up Scotty.... Sigh, not the same ring to it

    Lift me up Scotty.... Too perverse...

    Fly me up Scotty.... Even worse

    Oh heck, back to engineering.....

  • I checked out the XCOR website, but didn't see a timetable for when the Xerus might actually fly for the first time. Mike (or anyone else in the know), care to give us a guesstimate for when we can expect the test flights?
    • We're making good progress right now on a lot of the underlying technology and subsystems. We won't be able to set a schedule for the full vehicle until we get some more investment money in the bank. Should take about 18 months from funding to first flight, and another 18 months after that to complete the flight test program. We don't need too much -- million dollar class investors are what we're looking for.
  • I realize that this project isn't intended for launching sattelites/large payloads into orbit, but would a scaled up version be capable or are the weight/thrust ratios too low for large payloads?
  • Now YOU too can ride on a rocket and have your penis extended while taking herbal medication to supply you with energy for days on end!!!

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Close