Non-Profit Space Rocket Launching In a Week 127
Plammox writes "A non-profit suborbital space endeavor lead by Kristian von Bengtson and Peter Madsen is trying to put a man in space. The first test of the boosters and space craft in combination with the sea launch platform will take place this week. The catch? All of this is a non-profit project based on voluntary labor and sponsors. How will they get the launch platform out in the middle of the Baltic sea to perform the test? With the founder's home-built submarine pushing it, of course."
I love these guys (Score:5, Informative)
Check out the spacecraft: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/spacecraft.php [copenhagen...bitals.com]
Sven the crash test dummy is in for a wild ride!
The pace at which they've managed to do this work is phenomenal.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely, a guy must have steel balls to ride that! Even more so considering that their testing budget is rather limited, like the rest of the project.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
is the serial number of the rocket 00000 ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read that as clean out at first.
To boldly go where no non profit has gone before.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I love these guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do so many people have a grasp of rocketry as "stuff other people have already done". When you think about learning guitar do you ever find yourself saying "nah, they already did that in the '50s".
On (re)learning to make things (Score:2)
Wow, what a great point.
See also: http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing [google.com]
Re:I love these guys (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but playing the guitar is useful. Manned space flight was a stunt then, it's a stunt now. It serves no purpose whatsoever, except to give hardons to nerds and deluded Space Nutters who think we'll be mining asteroids next.
So you think giving hardons is useless? I can tell you that a whole industry is built on it! :-)
On a more serious note: Where do you suggest we get our minerals from when we have used up all supplies of some element found here on earth, if not through space mining?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless we fire it all off into space, I'd say the trashheap would be a good place to start.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but playing the guitar is useful.
Sorry, but the guitar thing was done in the 50s. Not any point to playing the guitar now.
Re:I love these guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are doing it the way true pioneers do. Not by requesting grants from some big government and untangling miles of red tape. Not by licking some politicians ass helping him get a few votes subcontracting some part to a company in his district.
Why? Why would a hobbyist's dream worry you more than some dictator's nightmare?
Better live in a society where people have constructive hobbies like this than in a society where the only encouraged activity is to memorize some long dead prophet's words.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because NASA and the US Air Force in the 1950s were the home of rugged anti-government individualism, free of all political pressure?
Sorry, what?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's saying NASA weren't true pioneers because Big Government. Doncha know.
Re: (Score:2)
He said
So who was doing rugged individualist space research in the 1950's?
The Soviet Union?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not anti-government, but with much less political pressure. The goal then was to get to the moon before the Soviets, engineers and scientists had more freedom to do their stuff.
NASA goals today are dictated by which representative in this or that Congress subcommittee has which subassemblies made by a company in his state.
Re: (Score:2)
You said:
NASA was financed how in the 1950s? Selling lemonade from a stand by the road?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NASA didn't exist through most of the 1950s. It was created on Oct. 1, 1958.
What happened on Oct 1, 1958 (Score:2)
Right, on October 1st, 1958, NACA ceased to exist and NASA began. NASA began by absorbing all of NACA's facilities, property, and people. So what happened, was 8000 people got a new badge, and a new name on their paychecks. The NACA dates back to Orville Wright.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has done any serious work on (relatively) large hybrid rockets before. In that way it is ground breaking.
It may turn out that the reason why no one has done it before is that they don't work, of course. We will see in a few weeks.
A little background on the guy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Home built (Score:2)
Re:Home built (Score:5, Insightful)
If you build it properly does it matter where you build it?
Re:Home built (Score:4, Insightful)
It matters where you test it - and how willing are you to break N custom-built pieces to ensure N+1 and onwards won't crack under pressure.
Say what you want about greedy manufacturers trying to lower costs, but proper QA requires economies of scale - there is a reason prototypes ended up in museums and not flying to the moon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll get as far as their extension cords will let them.
Re: (Score:1)
Did I mention they use a $15 hair dryer to keep some of their valves warm at high altitudes? It will be interesting how far they get using this approach.
I bet they make it all the way to the crash site!
And that's why Mazeratis are piles of junk (Score:2)
Oh, you mean those hand built, non-factory line, non-mass produced, non-"scale of economy" Mazeratis aren't junk cars?
Is it really possible that people can actually have a quality built product like those old Louis XIV furniture pieces or custom built Mazeratis that aren't mass-produced scale of economy products? You know once upon a time, quality didn't depend on an assembly line. Assembly lines are good for producing large quantities of products, but they they don't have any lock on quality. Just mass pro
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah...homebuilt submarine....
Checkout the videoes in my channel:
http://www.youtube.com/jbeckj
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't this have more points? I wish I had mod points just to set the record straight!
Good luck to you guys!
Zing! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Its taken this long for NASA to perfect it.
Re: (Score:1)
Nonprofit space exploration? Is there any other kind?
Some day, there will be. For example, asteroid mining companies exploring where to find lucrative asteroids to mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are most probably not going to mine for energy sources in space. You are going to mine for rare elements. You can have plenty of energy, and yet run out of rare elements. And most of the infrastructure needed would remain in space forever, so except for the initial cost, you'd have quite moderate resource need.
Open Source it! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Good thread about this over at SA (Score:5, Informative)
I caught this story on Fark, and they linked to a really good thread over on the Something Awful forums with posts directly from these people.
We've made the world's amateur largest space rocket [somethingawful.com]
If you don't want to read all 17 pages, just skim through looking for posts by user frumpykvetchbot.
This is completely awesome, and I wish them the best of luck with the test launch this weekend. :D
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or use this link [somethingawful.com] to only display posts by that one user.
Re:Good thread about this over at SA (Score:4, Interesting)
There's another thread of interest in there, involving an organization that aims to become the "sourceforge.net" of aerospace engineering. Their site should be ready within another week or so, as a collaborative development environment, skill-matching social network, and space science/engineering knowledgebase.
It also happens, their first official act will be a grant of approximately 5000$ towards Copenhagen Suborbitals. We have raised about 1500$ so far.
http://osm.chipin.com/osm-jul-2010
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3335167
The "Open Space Movement" supports Copenhagen Suborbitals.
Next project. (Score:1)
After they successfully completed the task of getting a man in space, they'll start planning the next step: Figuring out how to return him back to earth. :-)
Just noted this: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just noted this:
If they want to put a man into space, how can they avoid biological payloads?
Re: (Score:2)
Just noted this:
If they want to put a man into space, how can they avoid biological payloads?
Maybe he's going to be sterilised first.
It will work, but ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'd want to be wearing my bike helmet at least. And a G suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, this isn't the final vehicle design. This is just the first prototype, and they are sending up a crash test dummy. In the Something Awful thread I linked above, they talk about redesigning to make the position more feasible for a living person to go up in. The final rocket design is larger than the one they are preparing to test launch, which will have more room for better positions.
As for G-suits, I think they mentioned using the kind of flight suit that Chinese MiG pilots use. I'm sure a sea
Just to be slightly pedantic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only in direct monetary terms. Many politicians got votes from NASA projects. If you plot the geographic locations of NASA subcontractors you'll see they are spread all over the USA, every one gets a piece of that pork barrel.
Re: (Score:1)
If you add non-monetary profits, then this one also gets profit: The people doing it get wider recognition and certainly an ego boost, provided they succeed (but not succeeding usually implies no profit anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common misconception, fuelled by people who really hate spaceflight.
The United States (and the world) made HUGE profits on the space program, even after funding Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, from the savings from improved weather prediction (and, in particular, hurricane tracking and landfall location prediction).
We built the boosters, we built the satellites, we saved enough on people not getting killed that the rest of the program was free, in fact immensely profitable.
There is a REASON why the 1
Re: (Score:2)
And so there was plenty of profit in the space program, it's just that NASA didn't see any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I go into an air and space museum it indeed makes me very happy to pause and reflect how angry some people get that NASA research is government funded. If you don't like your tax money going to space exploration, apply the free market principles you love so well and move to somalia.
Re: (Score:2)
Someday you're going to realize we don't live in a just world where your dreams come true if you just wait long enough. Faced with that knowledge, you'll actually have to start making decisions and living with the consequences. I hope one of the decisions you make will be to go outside more and learn about the world.
amazing (Score:1)
this is freaking awesome.
make it open source !!!!!!
Re:amazing-- Open Source? (Score:2)
FYI, it is. They've even released the blueprints for this thing under an open source license (I don't know which one... the site is down at the moment) and are also planning on sharing any data they've received from the flights including performance data under similar licenses.
Be careful for what you ask... as you might just get it.
Take those plans and get your own team together to build another one!
I am not man enough for that ride (Score:2)
Damn, that riding position reminds me of being stuck in an MRI machine. Between the that cramped arms at your side position to the openness of the canopy around your head its going to take someone with extreme mental fortitude to take the ride.
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/spacecraft.php [copenhagen...bitals.com]
More info (Score:4, Informative)
More pics from saturday here: http://ing.dk/artikel/111189-se-den-danske-rumraket-blive-soesat [ing.dk]
They have been running a blog since the beginning on ing.dk (in danish only, unfortunately). Openness is key to the project, that's how they attract the donations that make up all funding.
The astronaut sitting upright is a key part of the design. The spaceship is 60cm in diameter. If he lies down the spaceship needs to be much wider, around 2 metres, and then require a much larger booster rocket.
They aim at a constant acceleration of 4G, which is not very much for a rocket, but this is to make it liveable in the upright position.
Another key part of the design is that it is a hybrid rocket, which has high power, is controllable, and is almost without dangers compared to traditional liquid and solid fuel rockets.
The fuel is actually some rubber substance (not entirely unlike tyre rubber), with liquid oxygen being pumped through to make it burn at high temps. Totally harmless substances, except when you ignite them, produces great thrust, and is even variable, so they can just turn it off if something goes wrong.
Until now they have only been doing static booster tests (all successful). The upcoming launch is the very first flight test. They only aim at going to some 20 km's altitude. The eventual goal is to replace Sven the test dummy with Peter Madsen, and thrust him to above 100 km's - and get him down safely.
Re: (Score:1)
If you like it, please, donate (Score:5, Interesting)
Once I knew about them one year ago (through Slashdot, by the way) I told my wife: "If I stop being a rocket modelling fan forever, will you let me give them the money I planned to spend on rocket models for the rest of my life? It could be the way to be part of a really big thing".
And she said: "Ok, but I don't want to know if he dies or not".
I think it's a fair deal, so I gave them a huge amount of money and I won't tell her about the final result.
Re:If you like it, please, donate (Score:4, Funny)
I think it's a fair deal, so I gave them a huge amount of money and I won't tell her about the final result.
Ironically, that's the same deal NASA has been operating under for decades.
*rimshot* thank you, I'm here all week, tip your waitress.
Re: (Score:1)
I expect she will get to know the result anyway. Unless she's living under a stone and never watches news.
DIY bragging rights (Score:4, Interesting)
submarine push (Score:1)
Hard part: 'and returning him safely to the Earth' (Score:2)
ICBM anyone? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It could hold about as much as the trunk in a generic sedan, but is less accurate and easier to track. What's your point?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Grandparent's point, or question is basically do we want a Sourceforge of Rocketry where North Korea or Iran can check out source and build a rocket more capable than their own current designs.
The fact that most of these Open Source designs will be of the DIY type that could be built by amateurs with easily sourced components ought to raise the Spock eyebrow of at least one intel analyst.
If nothing else somebody will probalby want to know who is posting and who is lurking there.
Re: (Score:2)
Only an intel analyst who has been sleeping since 1992 would be surprised at the state of amateur rocketry.
The only way to embargo information like this would be to restrict the speech of private individuals and that is a far greater threat to society than any rocket plans.
Personally, I find this wonderful and inspiring and am a little sad that so many people only see a potential for harm.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What would be the military implications? For those countries who are striving for missiles already have them (North Korea, Iran, Libya, Somalia, etc.) so there is little point in having a "spy" grab plans for a volunteer effort in Denmark and bring it to one of those countries. What counts is the labor and effort happening there to get this whole thing to work.
Besides, the flight profile for a weapon is quite a bit different than what you want for manned spaceflight. For a weapon, you want to have maximu
Re: (Score:2)
Governments might have to show their citizens a little respect? :-)
Geek card platina edition (Score:2)
So, what are the military applications for this missile, I mean rocket, design?
The builders themselves describe it as "less high tech then an off the shelf scud". AFAIK, there is not really any navigation in it, apart from small thrusters which allow the pilot to spin the rocket around its own axis for panoramic viewing. And their civilian GPS is subsonic only, so they have to wait for the chutes to deploy before they even know where the fuck the thing went. They built the launching platform for less money than what it would cost to rent a decent pram for a week. This project is
Re: (Score:2)
If you can shoot 120 km straight up you can shoot less than twice as far if you pick a 45 degree angle. 240km rockets are nothing special for most nations who care about such things. If you have a hardened payload and safety isn't a major concern, solid-fuelled rockets are probably easier.
Manyfeek! (Score:1)
Open Space Movement helping Copenhagen Suborbitals (Score:3, Informative)
Copenhagen Suborbitals Facebook page [facebook.com]
Open Space Movement Facebook page [facebook.com]
For anyone wondering, there's another little project in the works, designed to help support existing organizations such as Copenhagen Suborbitals, as well as individuals interested in manned space exploitation. Aka, the Open Space Movement.
The gist of this project is something akin to "sourceforge.net" for aerospace engineering, although that would be a gross oversimplification. The OSM operates on the principle that public involvement is the key to large-scale manned spaceflight in the near future, and operates as a service and organizational platform to help rally public interest, and direct their efforts towards a series of public space ventures.
The site is nearing completion, and should be ready for a beta test in the next week or two. When we begin operations, the first thing we have planned is providing a grant towards Copenhagen Suborbitals. We have raised ~1500 out of 5000$ so far [chipin.com]. Having talked with Kristian von Bengstrom, this amount is roughly equivalent to the cost of the propellants used in the HEAT-1X motor. More importantly, providing a 5000$ grant now makes it possible to provide a 50,000$ grant in the future - since the primary incentive behind our donation model is to show exactly what we've spent money on, and what advances have come out of it.
(we intend to spend money on in-house user-submitted projects as well, but a grant is easier to perform at this stage)
OSM and Copenhagen Suborbitals thread here [somethingawful.com]
FUN FACTS:
FY2010 NASA budget: 18 billion dollars
2005-adjusted cost of Apollo Program: 170 billion dollars.
Gross sales of cell phones in 2008: 38 billion dollars
sales of cell phones in a recent 6 month period: 65 billion dollars
We are currently spending more money on cell phones in one year, than the Apollo program spent in a decade.
Very rough estimate of Copenhagen Suborbitals' operating costs over past 2 years: 200,000$ to 300,000$
Sales of ringtones in the US market for 2008: 750,000,000$
Sales of "5 dollar footlongs" in Subway franchises in 2008: 3,200,000,000$
The public has more disposable income than the budgets of all space agencies and for-profit corporations combined. The OSM wants to put that to work.
After all, we already bought the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone in the DC/VA/MD area, I will be giving a talk on the OSM and Copenhagen Suborbitals as well, at the SpaceUP DC conference [spaceupdc.org] on the 27th and 28th of August.
Man the photon torpedoes! (Score:2)
On the sea, heading for Bornholm (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Rocket firing possibly on Sunday (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you listen to Yeager? Its always SPAM in a can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Suborbital (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering they are launching it from a sea launch platform they built, which will be towed to sea with the submarine they built, I'd say this is several orders of magnitude more awesome than what anybody else ever did.
Let's see, how many orders of magnitude harder things have you ever done? Links, please.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't say it wasn't difficult to do. It's like climbing Mt. Everest without oxygen, or crossing Antarctica by foot. Excellent jobs, but not terribly useful in the end.
Re:Suborbital (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How does busting your brain off in Physics for years to take a McJob feel?"
:) Hmmm... Is this your own experience projected? If someone is busting their brains off in Physics, then maybe this field isn't for them? Science and engineering certainly isn't fun for everyone. This is about spurring excitement in kids about building things with their own hands and come up with practical solutions to the problems they encounter. Secondly, I think you're taking things too literally here, this is not just about making kids enter space engineering (even though there are a fair number of job
Re: (Score:2)
a suborbital rocket is basically a glorified carnival ride
"Please do not open the safety belt, keep your hands inside the cart and remember to take and hold a big breath before getting out of atmosphere. Oh, and cover your face on the way down, so it won't melt."
Re: (Score:2)
But not much less dangerous
Orbital is much more dangerous. Re-entry at hypersonic speeds is not an easy problem to solve.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But not much less dangerous
Orbital is much more dangerous. Re-entry at hypersonic speeds is not an easy problem to solve.
I don't agree. Rocks do it all the time but admittedly pull a lot of gees. Build a carbon fibre sphere, coat it with an ablative heat shield. Tell the occupants to slide around inside so the heat is shared across the surface. Build a couple of doors with explosive devices which can open them even if the heat shield has melted them closed. Punch out at five km altitude and land with conventional parachutes.
If you want to get complex build a double cone: shallow cone with head shield on the bottom. Steep cone
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you find the right mix of materials for the heat shield, you'll still need to get the angle just right. Too steep, and the g-forces will kill you, the shield will get extremely hot, and it will be subjected to huge pressures. Too shallow, and the heat shield will be subjected to heat for much longer, so it has time to conduct through.
Jumping out with a regular parachute on your back requires an accurate landing. It's not so much fun in the middle of the Atlantic with nobody near your location.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but the bit about hypersonic flight is relatively easy if you are going to follow a ballistic trajectory in a capsule. No where near as hard as in something with wings.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Suborbital (Score:4, Informative)
Say you burn all your fuel to get into orbit. Thats a velocity change of about 8 km/s. To get down under power you would need to change your speed by 8 km/s again, but all the fuel you need for that would have to be carried up in the first place.
A good launch vehicle has a mass ratio of 1/10, meaning that roughly 90% of the launch mass is going to be fuel. If your fuel mass for landing is the same as the the fuel mass just to get the empty vehicle into orbit, the total mass of the vehicle at launch will increase by a factor of 10.
Its just impractical. To land on any large planet you need to use aerobraking.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Entry vehicles have been invented many times for many purposes. A vehicle was built to enter Jupiter at 50 km/s. As early as the 1950s simple entry vehicles were used to return film from spy satellites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was talking about entry vehicles with a live astronaut whom you don't want to turn into toast or jelly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about entry vehicles with a live astronaut whom you don't want to turn into toast or jelly.
Yes, because extremely heat and light sensitive film was always turned into jelly before it could be handed off to analysts. Likely the only different considerations are life support and g-forces.
Re: (Score:2)
Micheal Smith as in brother M... Smith and sister M...... Smith?
Small internet if so.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what reference that is.