×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

153 comments

140000 Newton (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119069)

..is 14000 kilograms force. So the total mass of your spacecraft at launch will be 7000kg (or less) if you want to accelerate at 1g initially. In practice you would want more that that so 3-4 tonnes is probably the limit for the whole spacecraft.

Re:140000 Newton (2, Informative)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119093)

No.
It takes close to 456,521 kilograms force to lift a weight of 7,000 Kg (Stage 1 Rocket).

Re:140000 Newton (3, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119115)

No. It takes close to 456,521 kilograms force to lift a weight of 7,000 Kg (Stage 1 Rocket).

Are you talking about mass to orbit? I mean mass just off the ground at launch.

Re:140000 Newton (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119237)

Oh... sorry then.
I thought it was mass to orbit. Because the article kept saying it was a precusor to a low-earth orbit satellite.

Re:140000 Newton (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119483)

Escape velocity is ... well know. That Newton guy figured it out, I think. Of course, a lot of physicists in the 1900s said it was nonsense (what will the rocket push against?), or that it wasn't possible with any conceivable technology, but that's another story.

What I want to know is what sort of budget would you need for a thing like this? I wonder if it's cheaper than NASA?

Re:140000 Newton (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119625)

It ought to be chaper than NASA (not just because NASA is a Government body):
1) These guys talk about multi-gear load lifting. Traditional rockets (like NASA Saturn V and even space shutle rockets) have been like one-gear cars. You have a great amount of power, but you waste a lot after you lift it up. These guys plan on a 4-speed car kinda thing.
2) Prices of raw materials and solid fuel are pretty much low. You don't need the special slush mix you used to earlier.
3) Advanced technology enables you to shave off a lot of unnecessary overheads and over-engineering..

Re:140000 Newton (4, Informative)

Big Smirk (692056) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120643)

Saturn V was a 'multi-gear' rocket. To lift off the pad, all 5 main rockets fired. As altitude increased, the center rocket turned off to minimize stress on the rocket (stay subsonic???)

Space shuttle also has multiple speeds. If you remember the Challenger disaster - the last message from ground was "Go with throttle up" Apparently the shuttle was high enough to go full throttle (again) and not worry about aerodynamic stresses.

One of the issues with the shuttles solid rocket boosters - they are steerable - allowing insertion into a very precise orbit.

Compare that with the typical home built - solid rocket, that basically goes were you point it...usually...give or take a bit.

I worked at NASA 10 years ago and can tell you I have never seen or worked with such a hardworking, under paid (compared to the commercial world) bunch of engineers. Buildings built in the 60s, linoleum tile not matching (patched so many times) - to the point that my wife (a teacher) commented that she used to think schools were in bad shape. All the money goes into the projects.

Re:140000 Newton (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120841)

Am NOT denigrating NASA in any way.
I had a relative working there. And i love astronomy a lot. I still remember the big grin on my face when i first saw the tiny rover on Mars, and java.sun.com crowing about how NASA chose its technology instead of Windows.
I wanted to be an astronomer and at age of 15 when most boys where playing cricket or tennis, i was devouring books on Quasars and Pulsars.
NASA's budget has been gradually reduced, while expectations of it has increased.
Problem is that the bean counters have made it difficult to do any innovation while lawsuits have made it impossible for NASA to innovate.

Re:140000 Newton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120617)

Doesn't matter a damn, I would rather see these guys fail a thousand launches than NASA proceed with even one more. Government monopoly of space must stop by any means necessary.

Re:140000 Newton (1)

Frank Fry (1483231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119655)

Redstone, the first american rocket used for suborbital manned flights, had a thrust of about 300.000 Newtons, so these danes may actually succeed one day.

Re:140000 Newton (1)

diskis (221264) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119099)

Not that much of a problem. Most stuff going to orbit uses several engines anyways. Space shuttle has 3+2 engines, Soyuz has 4.

Rocket fuel for thought... (5, Insightful)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119085)

Why is this cute and interesting when done by a group of European amateurs and a global threat when done in North Korea [telegraph.co.uk]?

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (5, Insightful)

mattaw (718560) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119109)

Amateur rocket people don't have a stock of chemical, biological and possible a few nuclear weapons, a historical grudge against a southern neighbor and totalitarian government (although their welfare state does have very good coverage).

As I have a Danish surname and live in UK (4, Funny)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119657)

I can assure you that the Danes do have a record of invading their Southern near neighbours, and I believe the governments of the time were pretty totalitarian. If the Danes had that rocket capability in the 10th century AD, nobody would have heard of King Alfred. And we'd be making the Lego for them.

Re:As I have a Danish surname and live in UK (4, Funny)

smallfries (601545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119701)

So we'd have lost out on some burnt cakes, but gained some good bacon, and a huge improvement in centuries of beer tradition... count me in. Let me be the first to welcome our parallel reality Danish overlords...

Re:As I have a Danish surname and live in UK (2, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120109)

You think Danish beer is an improvement over English? You must be American.

Re:As I have a Danish surname and live in UK (3, Informative)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121001)

As a Dane I must say that the best beer comes from Belgium and Germany. Although the Irish have some good stuff as well.

Re:As I have a Danish surname and live in UK (1, Offtopic)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119895)

Let's not forget that ethnically, the sitting House of Windsor, Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Duke of Normandy, Lord of the Isle of Mann, and Paramount Chief of Fiji, is part Danish.

The Danes must be held accountable!

10th Century Danish Rockets (3, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120557)

I can assure you that the Danes do have a record of invading their Southern near neighbours, and I believe the governments of the time were pretty totalitarian. If the Danes had that rocket capability in the 10th century AD, nobody would have heard of King Alfred. And we'd be making the Lego for them.

Who's King Alfred?

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (1, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119671)

X have a stock of chemical, biological and possible a few nuclear weapons, a historical grudge against a southern neighbor and totalitarian government, [so they are a global threat].

This always struck me as 1. being completely unfair and 2. being incredibly arrogant. To not sound like an insult, I will explain why:

1. Having something dangerous, does not mean that they will use it. Mostly because they are not stupid. They know they would be stomped in the ground in the second they tried it.
2. It is always coming from countries, that themselves have a historical grudge against them, hoard (one of) the largest collection(s) of chemical, biological and not only possible but real nuclear weapons. And they actually used them on foreign countries.

It's like the main school bully calling others bullies, when they buy the same knife that he has used on their friends. ;)

So to jump to the end: It's the crazy bullies in power, that want to stop the rising crazy bullies from taking their power away.

Strangely, it never happens, that one of them is not a crazy bully. :\

---

Funny side-note: They always like to drop in the logic trap of
If they say they build nukes, then we must attack them now!
Any if they deny building nukes, they must hide them, so let's attack them, before it's too late!

Watch for it.

---

Please don't parrot such propaganda. Thou shall always... Thou shall always, think for themselves. ;)

Hint Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119833)

To think for oneself does not mean to be contrarian for the sake of it, that would be stupid.

It does not mean ignoring countrywide living conditions similar to those in a Nazi Germany concentration camp for the inhabitants who behave and a Nazi Germany extinction camp for those who don't, that would be stupid.

It does not mean excusing a government simply because one can draw parallels and similarities to other governments, that would be stupid.

It does not mean that it is in any way acceptable to gamble with the lives of tens if not hundred of millions for the sake of moral relativism without any practical gain but bloodshed and/or worse.

It does not mean continuing to ignore the information available through kidnapped then freed South Koreans and Japanese as well as escaped North Koreans. Nor to ignore the material including covert recordings made by civilians amply illustrating what happens IN PUBLIC in North Korea (and to a lesser extent what happens to some North Koreans in China). Doing any of that would be extremely stupid.

The only people who shouldn't have problems with North Korea should be die-hard fascists in the political sense of the word, as opposed to using the word as a swearword (and using the word in a non-political sense would be... stupid).

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120123)

> It is always coming from countries, that themselves have a historical grudge against
> them, hoard (one of) the largest collection(s) of chemical, biological and not only
> possible but real nuclear weapons. And they actually used them on foreign countries.

It's quite amazing to learn this about Japan.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119875)

The warhead is being developed by a different, somewhat more secretive group of amateurs.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120005)

Amateur rocket people don't have a stock of chemical, biological and possible a few nuclear weapons

If they succeed in making the manned version, all they need to do is stuff it with some crack whores with PMS.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (4, Insightful)

Xiph (723935) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119113)

quit trolling...

but i'll bite.
When amateurs do things like this, they do it out of interest, and the development is quite open.
When North Korea launches, we're reminded that they've tried detonating nuclear weapons.

The difference is what we hope space is used for.
these people hope space is used for "cool things", hence this piques our curiosity.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (-1, Troll)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119401)

Blah blah terrorists blah blah blah America means freedom blah blah

Oh wait, is it not funny when people take your sig and use it against you?

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (-1, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119679)

When North Korea launches, we're reminded that they've tried detonating nuclear weapons.

As opposed to your country never even thinking of launching nukes or other countries.

Oh, wait...

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119123)

The Danish are sticking a man on the end
The Koreans are sticking a nuke... erm... i mean, a satellite, on the end.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (-1, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119703)

Yeah right. Always. Period. They would never want to have any science, other than that.

Play that thought trough to the end. Please do.
See. It's very very stupid. And call the North Koreans more crazy and stupid than the Neocon and older Governments of the USA, but they are not that stupid.

Ummm (5, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119127)

...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases and the Danes are not?

Re:Ummm (5, Funny)

sfraggle (212671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119193)

...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases and the Danes are not?

How can you say that when Denmark exports millions of vehicles every year believed to be used in private armies around the globe? True, they're Lego armies, but that's besides the point.

And so what... (4, Interesting)

jopsen (885607) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119213)

Offtopic, I just couldn't help but wonder:

...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases

And would you claim that the Americans less militaristic nut cases than the North Koreans?
(Rhetorical question - you need not answer I've already prejudged you by reading the second amendment).

Re:And so what... (4, Insightful)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119285)

Pfft, when was the last time America nuked a neighboring nation?

Oh.. wait :/

Re:And so what... (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119405)

Pfft, when was the last time America nuked a neighboring nation?

I just checked the archives for the last 50 years and there is not one occassion of the Americans nuking any opposing force. I could have looked back further but I expect you'd find exactly the same thing.

Re:And so what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119889)

and what about Hirosima in 1945 ?
well of course it was mostly civilians, so it does not count

Nuking Neighboring Nations (1)

J_Omega (709711) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119697)

Canada? Mexico? Cuba?

IIRC, the USA has never nuked a neighboring nation.

Re:Nuking Neighboring Nations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119773)

It's a bit of a stretch to call it "neighboring", perhaps, but there are no major countries separating the US and Japan, only an ocean, so I suppose Japan might be called a US "neighbor" in a sense.

Re:And so what... (1)

lee1026 (876806) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119819)

Canada and Mexico was never nuked. (Yes, I know that you were referring to japan, but they are hardly a neighboring country)

Re:And so what... (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119291)

Offtopic, I just couldn't help but wonder:

...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases

And would you claim that the Americans less militaristic nut cases than the North Koreans?

Background: I am not an American. The GP drew a comparison between NK and Denmark.

The USA is a seriously militaristic country but their leadership consists of reasonably balanced people. The NK leadership consists largely of one person who is almost certainly terminally ill and quite likely unbalanced.

I occasionally work in S Korea. With this missile test coming up (presumably whenever the NK rocket techs get the thing to fire) I plan to stay safely in Australia. There is something spookily serious about the South Koreans. I think it extends to the north as well. I think there will eventually be another Korean war, though it may be a short one.

Re:Ummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119423)

That can't be it. Being from Denmark myself, I can inform you that Denmark is currently involved in two wars of aggression, and has a history of of siding with the aggressor (WW2, Napoleon). North Korea, just like Iran, have legitimate reasons to believe that they may be next in the United States' (and others) war against evil(tm) (i.e. communists and Muslims). And when you are on the list of evil(tm), your only defence is having a couple of nukes for deterrence.

Care to qualify that ? (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119961)

Beyond rhetoric, what clear military action was done in the last 10 years by North Korea in which they destroyed any foreign military facility (or even civilian one) or even shoot down a rocket carrying a satellite ? I am sorry but I usually ignore both rhetoric (US/EU/North korea), Rhetoric is good for politic, but just at that, beyond that you have to look at the action. And lately from all 3 aforementioned only one did indeed have an aggressive stance toward other nation.

Re:Care to qualify that ? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120203)

What country currently has thousands of pieces of artillary aimed at a peaceful urban center [wikipedia.org] and is ready and willing to do their damned hardest to level it to the ground if anyone so much as looks at them wrong? Excuse me for thinking little of North Korea.

Re:Ummm (1)

KublaKhan1797 (1240934) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120779)

...because the North Koreans are militaristic nut cases and the Danes are not?

Hmm, you have never been to Denmark, have you?

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (5, Funny)

PalmHair (1222728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119133)

Well, the European amateurs have always been cute and interesting - I have 4 GB worth of them on my hard drive. I have never considered asian porn to be a global threat, I just not a fan.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (1)

chebucto (992517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119439)

I have never considered asian porn to be a global threat, I just not a fan.

Not everyone sees the problem as being so benign. Apparently you didn't hear about the high-level petition [theonion.com] to halt Japan's weirdo porn industry. Anything that makes millions puke has got to be a threat.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119725)

Not if they like puking!* ^^

___
* A "sex practice", actually invented by the Greek and Romans. I kid you not.
Don't ask me why I know this. ;)

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (3, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119143)

Why is this cute and interesting when done by a group of European amateurs and a global threat when done in North Korea?

Inexplicably, the European amateurs don't have a nuclear warhead development programme.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (-1, Troll)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119253)

Why is this cute and interesting when done by a group of European amateurs and a global threat when done in North Korea?

Inexplicably, the European amateurs don't have a nuclear warhead development programme.

The Danes of course know that firing nukes at their neighbours would amount to shitting in their own back yard. The North Koreans on the other hand...

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (2, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119713)

Why is this cute and interesting when done by a group of European amateurs and a global threat when done in North Korea?

Inexplicably, the European amateurs don't have a nuclear warhead development programme.

That's because European governments already have had nuclear programmes and indeed warheads for the last 50 years.

We DO have *several* nuclear programmes in Europe... who else made those two nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles that collided in the Atlantic a couple of weeks ago? (Perhaps the Americans did, I'm not sure).

The reason why this is cute is that the Danish army doesn't need these rockets, since they probably already have decent rockets that can do the job, and if not, then surely the French, English, Italian (etc) allies.

You can bet that the moment that these rockets become better than anything the army has, the "cuteness" is gone, and it will be classified, forbidden and of interest to the generals.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (1)

Jawn98685 (687784) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119589)

Gee, I don't know...
Perhaps it is because a group of European amateurs are not a nation state, governed by a totalitarian military regime, with a demonstrated history of aggressive behavior towards their neighbors and an arguably viable program to develop nuclear weapons.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (2, Insightful)

reallocate (142797) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119841)

Perhaps you ought to lose some of those illusions.

When an amateur group, Danish or otherwise, develops a rocket capable of carrying a nuclear warhead across the Pacific, as opposed to carrying a mouse across a pasture, you can believe it will attract all kinds of attention.

Also, the Danes aren't poised to invade northern Germany, aren't out of touch with reality, don't issue regular threats against their neighbors, don't have a multi-million strong military, don't kidnap their neighbors' citizens, don't starve their citizens, etc., etc.

Re:Rocket fuel for thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119977)

How dare question the White Man?? Because Koreans aren't White.

Because (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120157)

the other 4 launches that North Korea did claiming it to be about satellites showed that they were missle launches (as in distance), not straight up and down for a rocket. previous Truthfullness plays a big part of it. As it is, they have built one nuke that did not work correctly, but almost certainly showed enough that they could finish it.

Top Gear's Reliant Robin rocket? (5, Interesting)

PalmHair (1222728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119105)

Top Gear's Reliant Rocket was claimed to be the biggest non-commercial amateur rocket in Europe. The Danish rocket must be bigger, though the video shows only an engine test. Can you claim it to be a rocket test when there is only the engine?

Re:Top Gear's Reliant Robin rocket? (5, Informative)

mattaw (718560) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119131)

Well the word "rocket" is both an engine and a vehicle in common English usage scenarios. Hence it could be completely accurate to say that it is the largest rocket (i.e. engine, source of thrust) while it isn't the largest rocket (vehicle, reliant robin).

M

When I read the headline.... (2, Funny)

cybvapor (1203306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119121)

....I thought of Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the roadrunner. If my memory servers, it didn't work out too well for Wile E. Coyote.

biggest in europe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119155)

"this is by far the biggest amateur rocket ever fired in Europe"

but what about compared to the rest of the world?

I was there (4, Informative)

kobotronic (240246) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119171)

Up-close videos from the test:
http://www.vimeo.com/3531197 [vimeo.com]

Pretty cool stuff, the whole team is all smiles. What was tested is a scaled-up design from a smaller hybrid rocket motor. The fact that the burn was even and stable demonstrates that the motor design is sound, and the math checks out. As such the team remains confident that an atmospheric launch of either this specific rocket or its twin can be carried out by mid-summer. Also, work continues on scaling the design further for the HEAT booster with a body diameter of 60 centimeters (3 times the diameter of the HATV rocket tested yesterday). The goal of the HEAT booster program is to develop a safe, economical and environmentally friendly man-rated sub-orbital propulsion technology. On the www.copenhagensuborbitals.com website you can read about their miniature spacecraft that would sit atop HEAT and carry a would-be astronaut on a no doubt exciting suborbital flight.

Re:I was there (5, Informative)

andrew.w.moore (468363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119263)

No detraction from their achievements but far from perfect:

Any comments on the nozzle burning through; it can be seen clearly at 1:05-6 http://www.vimeo.com/3531197 [vimeo.com] flying off "vertically"; look carefully and the nozzle is heating up then "ping" - once the nozzle cone has gone then the burn starts to go turbulent.

This is also very clear in the high-speed footage of this event from the www.copenhagensuborbitals.com site.

Also the engine shutdown seems very messy - lots of random bits'n'pieces thrown about (e.g. down through the flame) - looks like the top of the inside of the booster section sucked down through the ignition chamber.

Well this stuff will be fixed I am sure and congratulations to them.

Re:I was there (4, Informative)

kobotronic (240246) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119299)

Thanks for the comments. I see now that the compressed timeline of the high speed video may be a bit confusing: I contracted for this brief summary the parts of the video that was essentially showing a stable, unchanging situation and left only the highlighted incidents. The burn becomes strongly turbulent only as the injector pressure has dropped appreciably, closer to flameout. The shutdown is rather messy, but I don't think that has significant impact on the flight trajectory.

We'll be releasing a video later this week with a synchronized time and data track.

Re:I was there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120131)

The startup is messy as well. A violent kick start like can damage all sorts of things.

Lots of work to do.

Re:I was there (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120359)

Are they seriously aiming for low-orbital manned flight? Or is that just a bad translation that should read "sub-orbital".

I don't see anything changing in my lifetime that will make big orbital vehicles affordable to amateurs. And thats a GOOD thing, if you remember why the Americans and Soviets built them originally.

Exhaust nozzle blows off after a few seconds (5, Interesting)

slashbart (316113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119197)

If you look at the hi-speed movie, you can see that their exhaust nozzle ring gets blown off after a few seconds (no timestamp on the video). I love what they're doing, but they're not there yet unfortunately. Bart

Re:Exhaust nozzle blows off after a 2:02 (1)

slashbart (316113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119215)

video [vimeo.com] 2:02. Exhaust nozzle lives 2 seconds

Maybe not 2 seconds (1)

slashbart (316113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119223)

I don't know actually because the hispeed timestamp is not showing. But the nozzle separates at 2 minutes 2 seconds on the video

Re:Exhaust nozzle blows off after a 2:02 (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119235)

Am I seeing apartment buildings in the background? Maybe they should do future tests in Greenland.

Re:Exhaust nozzle blows off after a 2:02 (5, Informative)

kobotronic (240246) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119245)

Actually, no. The nozzle ring sits on for 10+ seconds.
At 00:34 in the video you can see it fly off, the distinct luminous object leaving the rocket, which ignites at 00:19. I'm no booster specialist (I work video and telemetry), but my understanding is that the booster team is satisfied that at the time of nozzle failure the expansion effect (produced or supported by the nozzle) is no longer required. In any case a thicker nozzle wall has already been drafted for the next test.

The high speed (1200fps) footage closeup (side view) is edited timewise; the whole thing takes about an hour to play back at 30fps. We'll be releasing a video with time codes and more data later this week.

Thanks for the explanation (2, Interesting)

slashbart (316113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119293)

Great that it's not an important failure for you guys. I'm really impressed with it. I didn't know there was such a professional amateur rocketry club in Europe. Way to go Danes :-)

Lets hope it doesn't go wrong (bad taste warning) (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119317)

The final goal is a manned (!) low-orbital flight.

The result could be some crispy Danish bacon.

Re:Lets hope it doesn't go wrong (bad taste warnin (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119569)

The first guy to climb on board has The Right Stuff in spades !

Re:Lets hope it doesn't go wrong (bad taste warnin (2, Insightful)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119823)

The first guy to climb onboard and lift off won't see anything because the capsule is badly designed. Who's the loserboy nerd who drew it? The crew standing upright, and getting their blood drained from their brain because of the acceleration during the boost phase. Smart. Real smart. No g-suit is going to keep the blood where it belongs.

Mandatory: grab them by their scrawny necks/beat them up/bang their heads against the locker door until they faint/stick them heads down into an unflushed toilet/shit on their faces.

Re:Lets hope it doesn't go wrong (bad taste warnin (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119747)

Their goal is to go to the moon. Everyone knows that (!) is mooning someone, right?

Range (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119729)

So if it can reach low orbit, it's probably safe to assume that it could reach the US from there?

mmmm rocket cookies!!!

It's really a communications sattelite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119739)

no text

Come on... say it. (1)

drewvr6 (1400341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119759)

I for one welcome our new Danish overlords.

Re:Come on... say it. (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120171)

I for one welcome our new Danish overlords.

I for one do not know which overlord to welcome anymore, who is keeping track of the über-overlords? I for one, welcome them.

Final goal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120293)

The final goal is a manned (!) low-orbital flight.

So the company name is "Copenhagen Suborbitals" but their goal is an orbital flight? Or is this just a mistranslation of "sub-orbital"? Because the boosters they have proposed, even the largest "HEAT-4" has nowhere enough thrust to get into orbit.

Re:Final goal? (1)

kobotronic (240246) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120373)

Mistranslation. Copenhagen Suborbitals does not have any official programs for developing orbital flight.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...