Been letting my subconsious ticking over on prices of space exploration and such, so I'd thought I'd throw this out.

In the "somewhat" near future I'll need some volunteers. sorry, we have enough people to sit in the rocket, but ground crew.

Hams are welcome, we'll need some people for radio tracking, telelmetry and such.

photographers: if you can hold a camera or camcorder, we'd liek you to show up

technitians. if anyone thats interested that can handle the task of streamin video, we'll make sure you get a fron row seat.

even if you think you have no skills available that might be usefull, we'll train you. we need bodies of Do-ers.

so, do I have any volunteers?

__________________
Tater
President of MARS Club (NAR #660)
www.mars-rocketry.com
KC9ESF
NAR #79654 L1
EAA #703312

A little more details, please?

Where will you need the volunteers? If you need people to travel, you need to make sure that they don't feel like they're wasting their time.

How long will you need volunteers?

What benefit do you expect to receive from them? Is it workh their while?

__________________
Live long enough to see Space!

We can get to space as a species. The above link is information about life-extension (living longer) so that you can personally see a space-based civilization.

The MPrize (a prize to encourage life extension research now contains over 3 million dollars.

Is this for the launch of the 50,000 dollar rocket?

Out of curiosity- how did you find volunteers that were willing to sit in this rocket? Do they have any experience in test piloting?

tater's going to do it himself.

__________________
~ cogito cogito ergo cogito sum ~

Nothing in life is good nor bad; thinking makes it so.

Perhaps trying to win a Darwin award.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Don't ask me to light the fuze.

__________________
Note 1. All requests for planetary demolition must now be submitted in quadruplicate on form UX-565/B4 and be counter-signed by the assistant administrative officer for interstellar traffic calming - department QG-7. Subject to approval by the chief planning officer and the infrastructure development coordination sub-committee.

I'm still waiting to hear about the actual rocket. He has claimed in other threads that it is based on a 30 year old design. Which one?

And I think QJones' questions are very pertinent. A lot of us would love to see a rocket launch from safe but close range, and to see someone win the Darwin award before our eyes would be both sad and funny, but the practicle questions of when and where would be nice for starters.

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

I'm guessing it's an Estes "Big Bertha".

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

My first job was managing the hobbies department at a craft store. I sold those things all the time, and built a few myself including a nifty three-stage job that exploded spectacularly when the first and second stages wouldn't come apart.

In another post Tater mentioned working with 1/18th scale rockets that cost him about $10. That is a model rocket, and there are a few minor differences between a cardboard tube with a balsa cone and fins, and a 100 foot tall rocket with a crew capsule, liquid fuel tanks, slosh baffles, structural reinforcements, guidance and telemetry computers, turbo pumps, cyrogenic fuel tanks, fuel storage, testing, government launch authorization, etc, etc, etc.

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

The rocket is the Little Joe. 2 versions were made to test the launch escape system for the mercury missions, and then again for apollo. Tater's basing his design on the Mk1, or whatever the first version is called. It was a simple simple design, true, but 5/9 lunches were unsuccessful, I beleive. Last time I checked, 5/9 was a larger fraction than 1/6. I guess Tater must be totally cool with playing a game or two Russian Roulette, then.

Tater's main idea behind the low cost DIY space launch is that "In the 50s they didnt have guidance, in the 50s they didn't have telemetry, in the 50s..."

Regardless, I did my own research, and found contracts for the Little Joe rockets awarded in the high $100 000. In 1950's dollars. Thats more than the $50 000 of today's dollars with which tater claims he can get to space. When you factor in inflation and the fact that the rockets they built were mass produced, his numbers don't make any sense.

His defense is that materials are cheaper these days, he doesn't have to engineer it from scratch, and that he won't be calculating his price in "government dollars".

I think he can do it, but with millions, not thousands. I don't think I could walk into Ford, get the blueprints for an Escort, and build in in my backyard for a few hundred dollars. I especially don't think they'd let me drive it on the roads, even if it was based on an existing design.

Similarily, I don't think tater can do what he says he can with 50 000, nor do I think he'll be cleared to launch it.

IMO, this project "isn't gonna fly".

__________________
~ cogito cogito ergo cogito sum ~

Nothing in life is good nor bad; thinking makes it so.

i see i need to clear up a few things

[/b][/quote]
a few notes:
who said I was using liquid fuel?
who said I needed guidance and telemetry computers, turbo pumps, cyrogenic fuel tanks?

etc, etc, etc. <---you think I havent been doing my homework? fine. tell me exactly how much it is going to cost. No need to go into detail as small as the price of every nut and bolt, but try to give me some numbers that are not will arse guesses either.

I mentioned an orbital rocket around $50-100,000 range. whats your estimate?

actually the little joe 1 very simple design, and and interesting note about its failures.......

it did approx 7 launches, and the majority of them had failures. catastrophic failures? NO life threatening failures? NO! failures to meet design expectations? sometimes.

I personally like the one failure where the booster failed to light one of the clustered engines, causing the rocket to travel in a flatter trajectory than planned, causing the capsule to have to survive a higher max Q that the test was planned for.

did the capsule function? YES! did the capsule function above and beyond the call of duty? YES! did the bilogical payload survive? YES!

was the test a failure? technically yes, but you decide.
thats right. without :
cell phones
GPS
sattelite weather imagery
microwave ovens
microwave communications
pocket computers
color TV
years of space reasearch under their fingertips.

if you factor in only inflation yes. factor in only inflation for computers and pentiums should be retailing in the half billion price range, your thinking is faulty and I'll explain below

actually I cannot say materials are cheaper these days, since the materials did NOT exists back then. there is no way to accurately compare the prices.

Ummm, maybe. but nasa is not a PRIVATE company. all their records are available to the taxpayers. admittedly it might be a bit hard to get the information, but since the taxpayers paid for it, they can get it AND use it.

as for being allowed to use it, that is a whole other can of worms. one that has NOT been followed by Burt Rutan, but HAS been followed by Ky Michealson

Maybe not, but at least I am trying to move forward, rather than being so scared that I'd rather just sit around and let the world go by

too bad I am already working on it, or I could say "is that a challenge?"

__________________
Tater
President of MARS Club (NAR #660)
www.mars-rocketry.com
KC9ESF
NAR #79654 L1
EAA #703312

it was known back in the 1935 ?? aprox that solid propellant rockets can not give enough thrust to achieve orbital speed
hence the germans developed liquid propellant rockets just to get above the atmosphere.
yes they are used on shuttle and most other space launchers but have to be discarded at an early part of the launch

__________________
inventing and writing forum
You dont know how little you know.
till you know enought
to know that you still know nothing

tater, you can't expect to come on this board, say you're going to space for $50k, and then when we say "you can't do it", reply, "show me your numbers".

Show us yours first. Where are you getting YOUR numbers? Your estimates so far are based on then fact that computer hardware costs have become much more affordable. Except another one of your arguments is that you won't need to use computers. You deconstruct your own arguments.

Here are my numbers. Each Mercury Little Joe costed around $200 000 to build.

build. Not to develop. buying the materials and putting them all together in worknig order costed $200k. And that's having built 7 of them. Not a single one. Rule #1 of production is that the more you make, the less each costs.



Where are you doing your homework, Wikipedia? (I love Wiki, don't get me wrong.) How about the launches where the heat and pressure buildups at the outlet of the rockets was such that the main sequence rockets ignited early, resulting in much lower apogees? Speaking of which, if you want to get to "space", you have to have an apogee of 100km, minimum. Little Joe only ever made it to 88km. But I guess you have that one explanied by "today's technology is smaller, stronger, and cheaper"...

Now there I go, leaving my argument open for attack. True, the LJ was designed with just over a minute of thrust @ 1000+kN of force, to launch 4000lbs to altitudes of 500 000 ft (about 160km). Your capsule will admittedly be lighter and will not have to go that high. How much thrust will you need? Where are those numbers? How much does a hybrid engine that large cost? I'm looking at commercially available HPR hybrid engines that cost USD$300-$400 for about 1/500th the thrust needed for little Joe (2000 N).

(an aside: please give me your working estimate for the mass of your capsule. I'd like to crunch some numbers)

Speaking of biological payload, how much do you wiegh, tater? On Earth, that is, cause in the rocket, you'll weigh a heck of alot more. g loadings for LJ launces reached upwards to 14.8g. Test pilots might be able to handle that. Nothing against you, personally, but I don't think you can. But I guess if you black out, your autonomous systems and computer guidance will land your rocket safely.

"Oh wait." They didn't have computers in the 50s......

Please don't take this personally or think it is hostile. Please don't group me into the "naysayers that say it can't be done". I think it can be done, but as I've stated before, not with the same costs and methods you speak of.

Rutan didn't spend $20m on Spaceshipone's paintjob.

__________________
~ cogito cogito ergo cogito sum ~

Nothing in life is good nor bad; thinking makes it so.

Slosh baffles, cryo tanks, turbo pumps... those are all for liquid fueled rockets, so if you're going solid fuel then you don't need any of them.

Then the next question is what fuel you will use? After September 11th, 2001 it is not as easy as you might think to get pre-mixed, or the raw ingredients for, any type of solid rocket fuel. And, like slosh baffles for liquid fuel tanks, you have to be VERY careful preparing the solid fuel motors. Air pockets and uneven ingredient mixing can cause catastrophic engine failure (aka it explodes violently). Your nozzle system will have to be able to withstand the intense heat and structure of the motor and rocket body will have to be able to withstand burn-through like what happened to the Challenger Space Shuttle.

I thought the Little John's were short/medium range balistic missles. Can they achieve 100km altitude? Can they be scaled up to achieve that altitude?

As for cost of a single rocket I think you can get away with $100,000-$250,000 based on what I've heard now. However, that is for a single completed rocket. You are going to have to test your fuel mixing and packing several times to make sure you have it right, and that won't be cheap. I'd also recommend firing a few rockets to make sure the entire system is fully operation before putting a person on board. As this is a solid fueled rocket, they will be one shot deals. Unless you use the tire rubber/laughing gas fuel then you won't be able to throttle for tail down landings, so you're going to probably have to go through a few $250,000 rockets before you can feel confident that a person can ride it safely. Then of course there are very tight post-September 11th regulations regarding high explosives, and most solid rocket fuels qualify. There are going to be licenses, permits, and paperwork, which I'd recommend finding a decent aerospace lawyer to help with. Nothing that can't be overcome, though, but it'll cost you several thousand to work through. Let's say a minimum a three engine tests at about $25,000 a piece, three test launches at about $250,000 each, misc expenses, legal fees, etc, and the final first manned launch at another $250,000 will put the total project from start to first manned launch at $1.1 to $1.2 million. You asked for an estimate, and I've given you one. If your revamped and updated rocket design is sound and if you can get through the red tape on the engines and testing, then I'd say go for it.

Please don't take any of our questions as criticism. We've all heard lots of ideas, some of the vehemently supported by the person posting them, but they rarely stand up to a closer look. Starting with a known design and sticking to the modest goal of just getting up to space is perfectly reasonable compared to some of the wacky ideas we've seen here. I wish you luck. I just think its going to take more time and money than you're currently planning for.

I also didn't see an answer to when and where you'll need volunteers. Like we said before, most of us work and would need a few more details before we can tell you we could get there when you need us.

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

tater, you can't expect to come on this board, say you're going to space for $50k, and then when we say "you can't do it", reply, "show me your numbers".

Show us yours first. Where are you getting YOUR numbers? Your estimates so far are based on then fact that computer hardware costs have become much more affordable. Except another one of your arguments is that you won't need to use computers. You deconstruct your own arguments.
[/b][/quote]
I am sooo glad I got you thinking, thanks for giving me some numbers to fight with. I knew that if I started throwing wild arsed numbers into the air someone would start giving more realistic ones
umm $200,000? thats what, 10 paid empolyees at $10/hr for 1 year, right?

all of the suddent I don't think your quote of $200,000 could be right the 7 littel joes were built in 8 months, but I can assume that someone was getting paid more than $10 per hour.

also, each little joe was built individually, assembly line rules didn't apply (ok, maybe somewhat, but...)

....

note the prices I used did not mean to include development costs incured by previous flights. If I had to do that, I'd have to include EVERY rocket i've build and flown, plus all the equipment that i've built, bought or used (or abandoned) to get to this goal. doing so would easily start inflating the overall price to start matching government numbers.

but anyway, I will agree with you that building one rocket costs more than building 1/7th of 7 rockets, but you are starting to see that my numbers are getting closer to reality than the "millions and millions" that others quote off the cuff
which launch was that?

BTW, *ONE* of my refernces isLittle Joe DVD which, while aimed at modelers, contains a ton of information if you wanted to build the thing.

goes through all the joe launches, so which launch was the one you speak about, I'd liek to go review it.

also, the spacecraft films sets are really good, especially if you look at the prep footage they have included.

note: that is all I have for DVD refernces. I also got the blueprints for the capsule online, but should have saved my money. exterior only, and great for modelers, but pretty useless for me w/o structural.

Also here is a site that has most of the link for the manuals for tha capsule

Meadville Space Center
They are also in other places, but this is the first link i grabbed from google.

nope, not even going to use that aregument. suffice to say that if I can even get far enough to get a man-rated, unmanned rocket to HALF that height, i'll be in a fit of giggles, and most likeley will have a list of people willing to fly, even if it isn't space. and i'll have started getting a group of people who will be looking at pushing the envelope enough to get us that extra 12,000 km
check out Hybrids, much cheaper than the APCP
the references got say the capsule weighted about 2000 pounds, I would like to get that under 1500.

note, one of the side projects will be to build a mockup of the capsule so we can star seeing what structural members will be like, what instrumentation we will need, where it will be stuck, and how much it will weight. this shoudl get us a closer estimate as to what the weight of the capsule will be. I did not include the costs of this in with the little joe project.
yes, one of the things we need to look into is gettung the average thrust down low enough to survive. 3 g's would be nice with 6g's being acceptable
no, but the reason for this thread and others is ti get people to start thinking how *cheap* it is to do. not millions, not billions. tens to hundreds of thousands, even by your estimate.
no, but he used paid employees, not volunteers. he also included rental costs of a hangar where i'd build it in my garage and would not factor in the costs. new vehicles for tracking, transport, and telelmetry? I'll use my 87 ford 150 thank you, and save the money for something else.

note: one million pays for 10 employees at $10/hr for 5 years. you think melville was only paid $10/hr?

__________________
Tater
President of MARS Club (NAR #660)
www.mars-rocketry.com
KC9ESF
NAR #79654 L1
EAA #703312

So are you saying that they would cost MORE to build? I thought you're trying to prove theyre cheaper. (btw, that's $200k 1958 dollars, about 1/5th the cost of the $1m MR, or 1/20th the MA)

I looked at the manuals etc on the NASA site. Are those the "blueprints" you speak of?

Do you have any print sources, or just the web and this DVD?

I can't find prices for hybrids, and I've tried hard. Now I imagine you won't be manufacturing your own motors, you'll be buying them. Just for a sort of comparison, do you know how much Ky spent on his motor for the record flight? I'd like to get an idea of just how cheap your hybrid motor is gonna be. How much was the one that put his 40lbs to 100km? (assuming you know this from talking to him)

I'm off to the library to get some numbers I have for the capsule mass and the specifics on that rocket misfire (the rocket wasn't lost or anything, but nothing you'd want to happen while you're inside.)

__________________
~ cogito cogito ergo cogito sum ~

Nothing in life is good nor bad; thinkin