Beta
×

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!

Designing the World's Tiniest Manned Suborbital Vehicle

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the more-fun-than-a-roller-coaster dept.

Space 153

cylonlover writes, quoting Gizmag: "Generally speaking, companies developing suborbital manned vehicles brag about how much elbow room their spacecraft will provide passengers. They say there will be plenty of room to float around during the weightless portion of the flight, that there will be no fighting for windows, that passengers will comfortably endure the high-g portions of the flight ... and then there's Copenhagen Suborbitals' Tycho Brahe. CS's Tycho Brahe is a one-passenger capsule intended for a purely ballistic flight to a peak altitude approaching 100 miles. The passenger is just along for the ride, with no mechanism to steer or otherwise pilot the capsule."

cancel ×

153 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You WILL watch... (5, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078293)

Looks so small you haven't even got room to put you hands up to cover your eyes, let alone wipe your breakfast off the glass.
One can only hope the canopy is made of Peril Sensitive glass [hhgproject.org] , and you get the option of editing any inflight videos so your friends don't get to see you screaming like a schoolgirl.
I hope they subcontract with Depends, because you know someone's going to need them, especially since the parachute is at the bottom, and the final descent should be sufficiently terrifying that you wouldn't want anything else floating around your screaming mouth.

Re:You WILL watch... (5, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078329)

On this weeks episode of "Who Wants to be a Human Cruise Missile...."

gravity's hambone (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078529)

Looks like these guys are going to drain the world market of imipolex g for their little project.

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079343)

On this weeks episode of "Who Wants to be a Human Cruise Missile...."

FIRE ME, BOY!!!!

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079387)

Mod up Funny! Amazing how in 2012 the USA has no capability of its own any more to even send up spam in a can.

Re:You WILL watch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078355)

Yeah that looks scary as hell. What's their business plan? Abduct people and ask a ransom to their family for NOT launching them into this tin can?

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079257)

close, it's to abduct mother-in-laws and take bids for the crash-cam youtube footage

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079587)

What's their business plan?

The three step process has been modified somewhat:

1) ???
2) Profit!
3) Launch stuff into space

Stage 1 is already over... You too can contribute, see raketvenner [raketvenner.dk] .

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078373)

Saw the pic in TFA years ago. Reminds me of the cyborg missiles in Gunnm.

Re:You WILL watch... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078405)

I may be misreading the schematics, but it appears the the parachute is stowed at the feet, but the anchor point is at the head. So when you descend, you'll be (gently?) flipped back over by the drag, then fall feet-first.

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

Tifer (2644417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078445)

Maybe this will give bullet manufacturers a new perspective.

Re:You WILL watch... (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078483)

I have to say this doesn't look like a good idea.

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078663)

I'm sure Wolowitz will have plenty of elbow room.

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078709)

Have no fear about your breakfast blocking your view. With the velocity you'll be traveling in standing position, it's more likely to come out the other end anyway along with yesterday's lunch and dinner. You should be more worried about losing your lunch when first seeing the re-usable flight suit.

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078733)

They should market this as a once-a-day pay-MUCH-extra ride at an amusement park.

Re:You WILL watch... (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078775)

If people are willing to pay for this experience, for $5 I'll let them ride shotgun while Grandma drives to bingo.

Tycho Brahe? (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078335)

One can only hope that the next one will be named "John Gabriel".

Re:Tycho Brahe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078431)

Yes, thanks to a notoriously unfunny web comic the name of a great man has been temporarily soiled.

For all the theoretically capable writing that spews forth from Jerry Holkins you'd think he would have picked a more creative nom de plume.

Re:Tycho Brahe? (1)

tinkerton (199273) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079433)

The next one will be called the 60 mile high club. It will be a bit wider and have room for two people.

So basically. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078339)

It's a coffin for shooting people into the sun.

Re:So basically. (2)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078399)

You'd have to add at least a booster stage; this one will only get you to the ocean.

Re:So basically. (2)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079333)

It's not as roomy as a coffin. It's more like a straightjacket, which is ironic.

"ballistic" (3, Funny)

Tifer (2644417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078361)

I think I'd be too caught up with the "human projectile" aspect of the flight to ride this myself. Science!

Re:"ballistic" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078741)

It looks like a minimalistic version of the US Confederate submarine "Hunley" -- with all the safety issues connoted by that (the Hunley sank twice, killing both crews, then went missing with a third crew).

Re:"ballistic" (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079527)

I am just a block away from the Hunley as I am typing this. Some pretty fascinating stuff has been discovered since they pulled it up a couple years ago. A month or two ago they found a coin on the sub with a big dent in it. Legend had said that the captain had kept this coin in his breast pocket after he had been shot in the heart, but was saved by the pocketed coin (that's a lucky coin!). Historians had long thought this story to be a myth until they found the damn thing on the floor of the sub.

Interesting story, but you could not pay me to get in that thing or anything like it.

Americans need not apply (2, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078369)

an average adult male build and a weight of 70 kg (154 lbs)

Americans need not apply. This is "SMART CAR" sized not "SUV" sized.

Re:Americans need not apply (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078395)

The smart car has better engineering.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079637)

But much poorer vertical acceleration. Possibly lower range per fuel tank too. Its an apples and oranges thing. "Better" also needs some clarification.

Remember that aerospace works under the opposite optimization scheme from cars and consumer goods. Simplify and add lightness, that sort of thing. From a design standpoint they are not directly comparable.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079885)

But much poorer vertical acceleration....

But with the right rocket motor and maybe a good kicker-ramp, the Smart car would have excellent vertical acceleration.

Re:Americans need not apply (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078539)

Also just about anyone who works out on a regular basis.

Just because someone is heavy, that doesn't mean that they are fat.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078879)

You are honestly going to claim more people are on the high end of the weight scale because they exercise so much?

Re:Americans need not apply (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079145)

You are honestly going to claim more people are on the high end of the weight scale because they exercise so much?

71kg+ is too much for this rocket.

But 71kg+ isn't especially heavy as humans go - I'm 188 cm tall, and haven't massed as little as 70 kg in close to 40 years.

And no, I'm not overweight as such things are measured these days....

Re:Americans need not apply (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079179)

No, but it is a significant amount of the population.

I haven't weighed less than 160 lbs since sophomore year of high school. I've never been described as fat, most people guess my weight around 20-35 lbs less than I actually weigh.

Re:Americans need not apply (3, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078573)

an average adult male build and a weight of 70 kg (154 lbs)

Americans need not apply. This is "SMART CAR" sized not "SUV" sized.

That's "average"? Last time I had a physical my doctor said I was UNDER weight at 165lbs. Maybe the average weight of an adult male midget.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078851)

How tall are you?
At 5' 7" I am not a midget and I go under 154lbs. I would say I am on the short side of average, but not outside the normal high range for a White male.

In short, you sound fat.

Re:Americans need not apply (3, Insightful)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079503)

BMI is a horrible way to determine fitness. Muscle mass is more dense than fat, and therefore, athletes tend to have more weight per unit of volume than the typical couch potato. BMI does not take that into account.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079665)

It was never meant for use on individuals, only groups. Far more people are fatties than athletes.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

butchersong (1222796) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079723)

Most white males I know are a good deal taller than you. In short... you sound short.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079549)

You are correct. The average american male weighs around 190lbs. It was around 165lbs in the 1920s, but that ship has sailed.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078575)

average for where ? I am not fat, but at my height I will not be able to get down to this weight. I am also not that tall compared to some northern European or Nordic men.

I have no worries about the weight limit though, as there is no way in hell that I would ride on this. I can imagine even best case scenario that you get to orbit facing the wrong way, and get a view of nothing. Or, the thing spins like crazy and you get to see the earth roll past about 3 times a second. Then the inverted descent for long enough for blood to pool in your head.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078699)

I can imagine even best case scenario that you get to orbit facing the wrong way, and get a view of nothing.

Best case scenario?

It's SUBORBITAL - there's no way in hell it'll ever get into orbit, and if it did, there's no way in hell it would be able to survive reentry.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078843)

sorry... i meant altitude, not orbit...

screw the semantics, if you go up really high to get a view that few people have, but have no room to turn and actually take in the view, it would suck if the capsule was facing the wrong way.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079443)

screw the semantics, if you go up really high to get a view that few people have, but have no room to turn and actually take in the view, it would suck if the capsule was facing the wrong way.

True enough.

Frankly, I'm claustrophobic enough that being inside something that size would be enough to keep me from enjoying the view, even assuming I were facing the right direction.

Re:Americans need not apply (0)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079133)

HYUK HYUK HYUK

gosh you're funny!

except I'm 6'2 (that's 1.9m for you people who like measurements that are better in a lab but not as useful for human measurements).
I'm 180lb.

That's hardly overweight, or oversized. Hell, I'm built *thin*. And don't think I don't get pissed at idiot engineers who design things for the "average" person -- they forget that short people can pretty simply adjust things to fit things larger than they are but large people can't adjust things to fit. The last time I was in a Mazda, the steering wheel bit into my thighs, with the seat the whole way back and the wheel inclined as high as possible.

But hey, keep making jokes about fat Americans when the thing in question is being built for the "average" person of 5'7, 150lb.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079539)

Yep -- at 6'0", I'm not exactly "tall" but I had a heck of a time getting into the Eagle Talon I used to own while wearing a helmet for a track day. Honestly, it was a tight fit even without the helmet -- I typically drove leaning a little to the left so I wouldn't smack my head on the roof of the car.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079615)

And don't think I don't get pissed at idiot engineers who design things for the "average" person

If you can weld, maybe you can help them scale their design up a bit. That is also the only chance to fly the thing, they won't be selling tickets.

Re:Americans need not apply (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079533)

that's not how you determine if someone is overweight. this is: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/ [bmi-calculator.net]

a lot of people weigh more than 154lbs and are perfectly healthy. you compare their weight against their height and adjust for gender. if you're a male 6 feet tall or more then you are underweight at 154lbs.

Dr. Strangelove? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078413)

Sounds like you're just riding a bomb.

Re:Dr. Strangelove? (2)

Ashenkase (2008188) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078469)

If someone wants to go sub-orbital or into orbit, "riding a bomb" is the only way to get there. When it comes down to it, it's just a controlled explosion, no matter which rocket on the market you pick.

"Spam in a can" (1)

RetiredMidn (441788) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078419)

...to quote Gordon Cooper [wikipedia.org] .

Re:"Spam in a can" (correction) (1)

RetiredMidn (441788) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078501)

Correcting myself: it was Chuck Yeager who called the Mercury program "spam in a can".

Re:"Spam in a can" (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079675)

Two words: Meat Missile

2001 (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078437)

"The passenger is just along for the ride, with no mechanism to steer or otherwise pilot the capsule."

For here
  Am I sitting in a tin can
  Far above the world
  Planet Earth is blue
  And there's nothing I can do

Re:2001 (2)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078577)

or ... planet earth is hurtling at me very very quickly and there is nothing I can do

Re:2001 (1)

jockeys (753885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078737)

you'd better hope your spaceship knows which way to go...

Re:2001 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078787)

Once again proving that lyrics are just really, really bad poetry hiding behind music.

Re:2001 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079061)

It's just a lean to the left

It's just a lean to the right

Tiny airplane seats (1)

johnb10001 (604626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078439)

I hope the airlines don't read this article because they may replace the airline seats with these tiny capsules to cram more people into an airplane.

Re:Tiny airplane seats (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078591)

Too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8779388.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Perhaps though if you were laying down people wouldn't complain as much and then they could stack people in.

Re:Tiny airplane seats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078685)

Noting how few planes have the verticle room for anyone to stand except in the aisle, standing seats are a pathetic idea.
In contrast, those little chambers from 5th Element with just enough room for one or two passengers and a blast of knockout gas show promise.

Re:Tiny airplane seats (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079209)

I mentioned above that I'm 6'2 -- that's relevant again here.

No way in hell any airline would do anything like that. Most flights I take I have to bow my head to walk down the center aisle.
Or maybe I should rephrase -- maybe an airline would do something like that, but they'd be shutting out a sizable portion of the population. Already the things are designed with short and slim people in mind. Once you start standing-room only or lying-room only, you'd wind up with crap that's designed to maximize numbers and minimize space and that results in.. shit too small for me to fit in.
It's bad enough that I have negative leg room on planes. Not no leg room, but physically impossible for me to sit with my knees facing forward. And I have short legs for my height.

Shit's terrible.

Re:Tiny airplane seats (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079331)

Also gotta love the built-in head rests that are just around the shoulder level so I end up sitting in a leaning forward position. I'm only 5'10 and I have that issue, I can just imagine how much it sucks for you.

Oh, and here is real picture of the seats Ryan air was proposing.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZkjqkDDaG1FAq3L-GlsrQD1sEKAfW3_9Blteu7kLUQhzod34t [gstatic.com]

Spruce goose X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078441)

Cork rocket!

alpha testing (4, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078461)

From the web site, about an unmanned test flight last year:

Due to trajectory anomaly the spacecraft was separated and the parachutes had to be deployed during great speed in order to save it. The parachutes were not able to deploy correctly due to the speed but even with a "knot" of parachutes we had a low enough impact on water to recover Tycho Brahe as one piece.

I think I'll wait until a few more "successful" test flights have been performed.

Re:alpha testing (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078617)

I wish I had mod points, because this is the funniest comment I have read in weeks!

Re:alpha testing (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079093)

Indeed. In addition, and making allowances for the fact that the website copy was probably written in a second language, I have little faith in an organisation which has trouble with degress (degrees), parachtues (parachutes) and minuttes (minutes). (Yes, I'm sure I've made my own mistakes in this very post, but I'm not offering to put humans into space).

Re:alpha testing (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079677)

but I'm not offering to put humans into space

They aren't either -- offering, that is. Peter Madsen is the only one going; although perhaps eventually others in the core team may get to try too. If you get to go, it will be because you have been part of building it, and in that case you have an intimate insight into the risks involved.

Claustrophobia (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079367)

I don't care for underground railways and caving is my idea of Hell. If I'm going to die, I'd rather do it in the open air, thank you. Perhaps irrationally I don't get claustrophobic in sailplanes, which are hardly very big inside. This vehicle has achieved something I thought impossible: it travels through the air and it makes me feel claustrophobic just looking at the picture.

Drop pod (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078495)

It looks very much like a drop pod. It could be straight from this ODST ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzkL-vg8MHE [youtube.com] .

Re:Drop pod (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079391)

Or the drop pods from Quake 2. That was one of the coolest opening sequences that I've seen.

Yikes - did you see the holes in the side? (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078499)

From TFA:

Due to trajectory anomaly the spacecraft was separated and the parachutes had to be deployed during great speed in order to save it. The parachutes were not able to deploy correctly due to the speed but even with a "knot" of parachutes we had a low enough impact on water to recover Tycho Brahe as one piece.

No mention of how badly beat up the dummy was. it did not give me confidence

Re:Yikes - did you see the holes in the side? (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078609)

spacecraft are expensive, and people can heal. Get you priorities straight. If the person cannot heal, there are plenty more where that one came from.

Re:Yikes - did you see the holes in the side? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078689)

Footnote:

The interior of the capsule only needed to be hosed out with a soapy water solution and ready for the next passenger...

Cleverly named... (4, Funny)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078509)

.. after the largest crater on the moon.

Re:Cleverly named... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079009)

At first I thought it was named after the writer over at Penny Arcade.

Tycho Brahe (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079415)

Worse. Named after an astronomer who made very accurate observations but whose celestial mechanics were comprehensively wrong (he thought that the sun with all the planets orbited the Earth.) Do you want to travel in a space vehicle named after someone who got space wrong?

I'd *never* go inside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078557)

My claustrophobia would kill me.

needs room for (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078579)

Needs room for some way to soak up the urine that will pool at the bottom there.

Re:needs room for (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078649)

Perhaps they'll purchase some of NASA's adult diaper technology.

Re:needs room for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079053)

Perhaps they'll purchase some of NASA's adult diaper technology.

Was that a Lisa Nowak [slashdot.org] crack? ! Because it certainly seemed like one. [wikipedia.org]

You know how they say crazy chicks are wild in the sack? Just imagine what a crazy astronaut chick would be like. Now imagine doing your patriotic duty and signing up for a conjugal visit with her in prison.

Re:needs room for (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079207)

I was thinking of making a full blown Lisa Nowak crack, but decided to try to be a bit subtle and leave that up to the people responding.

What? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078585)

one-passenger capsule intended for a purely ballistic flight

So, how does one handle landing with that purely ballistic flight? Wouldn't this just be a crater on impact?

I think this got summed up nicely in Armageddon ...

Rockhound: Yeah, I remember this one. Its where the, uh, the coyote
    sat his ass down in a slingshot then he strapped himself to an Acme
    rocket. Is that - is that what were doin here?
Harry Stamper: [under his breath] Rockhound.
Rockhound: No, no, really, because it didnt work out too well for
    the coyote, Harry.
Harry Stamper: [talking over him] Hey, Rock. Knock it off.
Truman: Well, actually, we have a lot better rockets than the coyote.

I'm sure this is slightly more complicated than Wile E Coyote, but it sure as heck sounds like it.

It's not something I'd be willing to do based on the description, but I'm sure someone will.

Re:What? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078681)

I would figure it would be a water landing. So you get the pleasure of being a buoy bouncing around in the ocean until you get picked up.

I'll wait for the Iron man suit. (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078659)

I'll wait for the Iron man suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man [wikipedia.org]

Re:I'll wait for the Iron man suit. (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078751)

Dude, it's done something like $1 billion in box office revenue, and this is Slashdot ... do you really think anybody needs a link to know who the hell Iron Man is? ;-)

Never heard of the comic (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079481)

I checked the link.... I'm probably not the only Slashdot reader who isn't interested in US comics, amazing as it may seem. I assumed that it was a film of the children's book by Ted Hughes, who I can't stand, and never investigated further.

Re:I'll wait for the Iron man suit. (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079559)

Dude, it's done something like $1 billion in box office revenue, and this is Slashdot ... do you really think anybody needs a link to know who the hell Iron Man is?

If he hadn't, someone else would have kvetched at him demanding "[citation needed]" and "pics, or it didn't happen!"

And man, I can't remember reading so many negative comments accompanying an article. If the thing goes sideways, it's going to be all over really fast! Like Mac Truck in the back of the head fast. Feature. It almost sounds like you people want to live forever.

Will they yell at you..... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078667)

If upon reentry you scream.... "BANSAI!!!!!!!"

Prior art (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078731)

Circus cannon. Just add more gunpowder.

A bungee cord (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078881)

is suborbital and pretty small.

Re:A bungee cord (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079281)

and even if it breaks, you still get some ballistic flight for a while

spacecraft you wear instead of ride. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078951)

I think we have already been down this road... and almost every craft has had minimal ability to maneuver around very much after orbital insertion.

Doom Coffin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079051)

I'm having saturday morning flashbacks to seeing the bad guy's flying coffin from Voltron.

Re:Doom Coffin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079199)

Like the capsule that K'Ehleyr rode in to meet the Enterprise in TNG 'The Emissary'

I dunno (2)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079185)

Looking at the drawing I can't help but wonder what that "Aero Spike" will feel like as it drives into my skull.

Doom Coffin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079191)

I'm having saturday morning flashbacks to the bad guy's flying coffin from Voltron.

Cripes! (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079245)

This thing is a brick! [youtube.com]

Why the hell not? (1)

Gonzo The Gr8 (952908) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079399)

I'd ride it.

Re:Why the hell not? (1)

kermidge (2221646) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079681)

Beat me to it. As I post, 93 comments and you're the first with any spirit of adventure. Wired has been doing an article series on this for going on two years or so. The project's website has some interesting stuff. This is serious backyard engineering.

Re:Why the hell not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079697)

And I'd turn out to see you ride it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>