Latest private spacecraft makes first flight

[riddler 0]

Quote

hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide are pretty nasty materials

One time I was working at an astronautics facility and there was a hydrazine leak. It formed a large cloud of gas over the holding tank, which was only a few hundred yards from my office. We were all asked to report to our desks. The thinking was if the cloud of gas moved over to our building, they would be able to identify our bodies based on where we were sitting.

We asked how would we know if the hydrazine was in the building. They said it smells like almonds, then you die. We wondered how they know it smells like almonds if everyone who smells it dies.

Yeah, it's pretty nasty stuff, but it makes good rocket fuel I guess.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

>there's a hell of a lot more survivability inherent in a belly or partially
>deployed landing gear in a shuttle landing than a strictly vertical one.

If I were landing in a re-entry vehicle that was seriously fucked up, I think I'd rather be in an Apollo CM than an Orbiter! No landing gear at all to worry about. (Or more accurately a very integrated "landing gear.")

>Also the shuttle isn't carrying any additional highly flamable fuel for its landings . . .

Hmm - hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide are pretty nasty materials, and the shuttle lands with about 4000 pounds and 2000 pounds of the stuff, respectively. (It's needed for the RCS system and APU's during re-entry.) If I landed hard I'd much prefer to be breathing H2 or O2 fumes than hydrazine fumes.

>Again, I refer you to the spectacular DC-X crash.

Was spectacular, but then look at the HL-10 test vehicle crash. (It became the intro to the Six Million Dollar Man TV series.) They based the shuttle's landing profile on test flights like that!

Pity the Me163 pilot, sitting between the fuel tanks containing T-Stoff(80 percent hydrogen peroxide and 20 percent water) and C-Stoff (hydrazine hydrate, methyl alcohol, and water).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Hybrid engines are the future of civilian spaceflight. (Rubber and laughing gas)

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,076]

>Hybrid engines are the future of civilian spaceflight.

For tourist flights, perhaps. Solids are still simpler and more reliable. For orbital flights you're still looking at an SSME or RD-n derivative.

[pfloyd 0]

My money is on SpaceShipOne made by Scaled Composites and Burt Rutan http://www.scaled.com/index.html

My drinking team has a skydiving problem

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

With video. Short hop (only about 300 feet) but cool idea.


http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html

I reckon they copied it from Estes

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

>Hybrid engines are the future of civilian spaceflight.

For tourist flights, perhaps. Solids are still simpler and more reliable.

And much more dangerous to produce, and derived from highly controlled components (APCP is considered an explosive).

I'm 75% done building a 3 in. diameter rocket that will fly on a J class motor. I just have to finish the altimeter/deployment system....

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,076]

>I'm 75% done building a 3 in. diameter rocket that will fly on a J class motor.

Why didn't you use a hybrid engine? I suspect because commercial solid-fuel engines are more available, reliable, safer, and cheaper.

[BlindBrick 0]

Why not go the slacker's route? Buy a few of those missing Ruskie backpack nukes off the black market and build an Orion?

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[airtwardo 7]

I just have to finish the altimeter/deployment system....

***

RSL?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[riddler 0]

Quote

Solids are still simpler and more reliable.

I'm not totally convinced that solids are simpler. Mechanically, yes, but they have a lot of very high tech problems of their own. For instance, after the solid material is laid out, the solid boosters are x-rayed to check for gaps (or very large bubbles). If there are any, the solid has to be "patched", which is quite a process.

We brought in the Russians to LMA 10 years ago to help teach us about liquid fueled rockets because their overall design was quite a bit simpler than some of our solid designs.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

>Hybrid engines are the future of civilian spaceflight.

For tourist flights, perhaps. Solids are still simpler and more reliable.

And much more dangerous to produce, and derived from highly controlled components (APCP is considered an explosive).

I'm 75% done building a 3 in. diameter rocket that will fly on a J class motor. I just have to finish the altimeter/deployment system....

So did you get your LEUP from BATFE, have your fingerprints taken and your explosives magazine inspected, and sign to waive your rights to privacy should any BATFE inspector wish to enter your house at any time without a warrant?

And APCP can't even be made to explode if a detonator is stuck in it!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.