Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Space

Build Your Own Saturn V 219

Posted by michael from the hope-the-parachute-opens dept.
Illbay writes "Space.com has a great story about a company in Colorado that has introduced an incredibly detailed scale model of the Saturn V rocket booster that flies a lot like the real thing! Apogee Components has "taken the time to research the actual vehicles and then used that information correctly in creating the kits," with a scientist from the team that designed the Delta 2 rocket on staff. I remember the old Estes model rocket version of the Saturn V back in the 60s, but they were not very detailed and very difficult to get to fly properly. Looks like Apogee might have a winner."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Build Your Own Saturn V More

Build Your Own Saturn V

Comments Filter:

  • Scale (Score:4, Funny)

    by momerath2003 ( 606823 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:19PM (#7364419) Journal
    Standing more than 62 inches (1.6 meters) tall and weighing about three pounds (1.4 kilograms) at launch, the most detailed reproduction of a Saturn 5 readily available today is 1/70th the size and 1/2,166,666th the weight of the original.

    "It's just a matter of scale as far as the rockets are concerned. The laws of physics don't change,"

    Try telling that to a 2-atom-wide model rocket.

    The laws of physics are a tad different on the quantum scale. ;-)

    • Re:Scale (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
      The question is, how many atoms in size does your model have to have before you have something recognizable as a Saturn V, whose design can carry out all the basic functions of a Saturn V? We're talking about multiple stages of rocket here, with propellant, and so on. (The site is pretty slow so I'm not interested in all the details.) The model uses solid rocket engines, so your model can too within the purposes of this question.

      The model might end up being less than 100 atoms across, though I doubt it. I

      • The model might end up being less than 100 atoms across, though I doubt it. I'm guessing at least 500. Still quite small enough to make it a considerably different game than the larger rockets... But a question whose answer I am genuinely interested in. Anyone having tea with drexler tomorrow?

        If the intent is to have a flyable model rocket, with any appreciable range, it will have to be considerably bigger than 500 atoms. It will have to contain considerable fuel and reaction mass, and it will also have t

    • Re:Scale (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pVoid ( 607584 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @01:15AM (#7365320)
      It's just a matter of scale as far as the rockets are concerned. The laws of physics don't change

      The laws might not change, but the constants in the equations do. Specifically, air is much 'more viscous' for a model, after all, if the model is 1/70th the scale, then the atmospehere it's going in should be 1/70th of a bar.

      Also the drag coefficient of everything doesn't scale properly. It's really a question of scalability, and I think the IT crowd of all people should understnad that.

  • Very interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by edmz ( 118519 ) * on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:19PM (#7364422) Homepage
    I'm not much of a fan of rockets nor space flying history, but this quote from the saturn 5 page [apogeerockets.com] got me quite interested:
    The sound waves could easily pulverize a human's skeleton if he was unlucky enough to be within a mile of the launch pad. Even at further distances, the sound waves felt like someone was thumping on your chest with their fists.

    • Re:Very interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EvanED ( 569694 ) <{evaned} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday October 31, 2003 @10:13PM (#7364705)
      Yep. As with the Shuttle launches, the noise is actually what makes the safe distance 3 miles, not anything having to do with the rocket exhaust.
      • Yep. As with the Shuttle launches, the noise is actually what makes the safe distance 3 miles, not anything having to do with the rocket exhaust.

        Actually its only 363 feet or so vertically - you should be safe in the capsule on the top of the damn thing without getting pulverized.

        • Actually its only 363 feet or so vertically - you should be safe in the capsule on the top of the damn thing without getting pulverized.

          This is only because the shuttle's launch system sprays massive amounts of water a few feet above the launch pad to diffuse the sound reflected from the ground. Without this system, the sound waves reflecting up from the launch pad would destroy the shuttle.

          Here's a link with more info: Sound Suppression Water System [nasa.gov]
      • There are at least two errors in your post. 1) Safe distance has nothing to do with Sound at all, it's the maximum range of the debris pattern at ground level if it blew up on the pad. 2) The Saturn V launch was close to 200db, while thats VERY VERY loud, its not going to kill you. It's not as loud as say a 155mm howitzer, but its louder than most jets. Think standing at the end of the runway and see a jumbo jet taking off and then add a bit. 200db WILL make you stone deaf but it won't kill you. NASA als
        • [This is to the other reply as well]

          I'm not saying that the 3 mi is the minimum safe distance for hearing a launch. I'm just saying that 3 mi is the distance NASA determined to be the cutoff for spectators to be, who don't have any reason to be close other than to say "ooo, that looks cool." This distance was set, according to the tour guide I had at KSC at any rate, by acoustic levels at launch. (IIRC; I didn't actually verify the distance, but that's what I remember anyway.)

        • Re:Very interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

          by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @06:07AM (#7365889)
          200db is a energy density of about 100 MW/m^2.

          This will kill you in a few milliseconds.
          140db->deaf after a hour or so
          160db->deaf at once
          180db->danger of internal injurie, blood vessel ruptures, ect
          200db-> RIP
          This ofcource is only true if this noise level is reached where you are. If the 200db are 1meter below the thrusters, and you are 250m away, you may only get 150or so and still be alive and kicking.
          • 200db-> RIP

            On an almost-related note regarding the possible future use of military technology audio, apparently the inventor of the world's funniest and lethal joke has disappeared and is assumed to be working for terrorist organizations. Be careful what you listen to, people, this [intriguing.com] could happen to you!
        • So while a '47 heavy at the end of the runway might very well be putting out 160dB, 200 db is on the order of ten thousand times more power, not 25% more...I can definitely see 200dB pulverizing a squishy human.
    • The sound waves could easily pulverize a human's skeleton if he was unlucky enough to be within a mile of the launch pad.

      Ummm... they do know the Saturn V launched manned missions, right?
    • I wish things were the 60's again:

      1. We shot rockets to the moon (whose side effects could apparently kill you)
      2. We had really powerful pesticides like DDT (although it could kil you too.)
      3. We had extra heavy and powerful cars like the dart that really did intimidate (although getting into a simple crash could kill you).

      Apparently everything tended to build character in those days. It's a testament I suppose to the advancements in technology that we don't 'build character' as much anymore ;)
    • Last time I was at the Cape, tour guides there were still telling people with a straight face that the local birds, snakes and alligators had all learned to tell when a big launch was coming up and would clear out in time.

      rj
      • Birds at least vacate the area; they have warning whistles around the launch site that go off a couple minutes prior to launch. Other small animals burrow.
      • Dude, I was there 2 weeks ago. We spent 3 days there and took the regular bus tour PLUS the 2 specialty tours. None of the 3 tour guides we had said anything remotely like that. They did mention that KSC is surrounded by the Merit Island National Wildlife Refuge, and remarked often on the large number of species that call it home. But at no time did we hear anything as ridiculous as that.

        We actuatlly saw the bald eagle (and not just its nest), quite a few 'gators, some burrowing tortoises and quite a

    • Re:Very interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mraymer ( 516227 ) <mraymer@nOsPaM.centurytel.net> on Friday October 31, 2003 @11:09PM (#7364934) Homepage Journal
      In fact, according to History Channel's show Modern Marvels, the only man-made sound louder than a Saturn V at liftoff is the detonation an atomic bomb.
      • There you go, just one more reason why I'm baffled to hear people get struck by lightning and survive. If not the 50 thousand volts, wouldn't the sound at least hurt them??

        Baffles me I tell ya.

        • Lighning is rather more than "50 thousand volts". A typical strike can deliver tens of millions of volts at tens of thousands of amperes (typically 25,000 to 30,000). People are hurt by the sound of a strike - punctured eardrums and even inner-ear damage can occur among people close to a strike, but the actual force a lightning strike can exert on the body is nowhere near the same league as a rocket engine or bomb blast. Lightning involves the extremely short-term ionisation of a fairly thin channel of air,
    • How do they actually work out how much sound would pulverise a human skeleton? I bet Nasa has a whole file on that.
    • Have to ask the obvious: what about the astronauts themselves? How are they protected?

  • World's first (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:21PM (#7364430)
    Standing more than 62 inches (1.6 meters) tall and weighing about three pounds (1.4 kilograms) at launch, the most detailed reproduction of a Saturn 5 readily available today is 1/70th the size and 1/2,166,666th the weight of the original.

    "It's small step for man, a giant step for Mini Me" -- Dr. Evil

  • what a troll (Score:4, Funny)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <sil&politrix,org> on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:21PM (#7364436) Homepage Journal

    And I was getting all hot under the collar thinking about maybe pulling up in my model Vue tomorrow with 24's spinning, music flaring, DVD's behind the sear in a pimperrific three piece fohsachee suit, and you're talking about a rocket.

    I thought you meant the car damnit

  • Not for long (Score:5, Informative)

    by igabe ( 594295 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:23PM (#7364452) Homepage

    URGENT NEWS ABOUT MODEL ROCKETRY!

    The new Homeland Security Act has many provisions that threaten rocketry in the United States. Both small rockets and high power models are affected. We need your help to make rocketry legal again. Please write your State's Senator now. Click Here for more information. [apogeerockets.com]

    If the video on that page becomes slashdotted, go here [space-rockets.com]

  • Why build your own Saturn? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They're affordably priced little cars. I'm sure buying the parts just costs more, and people haven't been building cars themselves for nearly a century.

  • Mirror (Score:2, Informative)

    by mrwonton ( 456172 )
    Here's [umich.edu] a mirror for you

  • Model Rocketry Is In Trouble (Score:5, Informative)

    by MountainLogic ( 92466 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:26PM (#7364473) Homepage
    The office of home land paranoia is really doing it's best toshut down this kind of hobby. See here [space-rockets.com] for more details.
    • Looking through the info on the Office of Foam Bland Insecurity, the following is obvious:
      • Neither side is being 100% honest with their feedback. 5 miles for an AT device? Sure. There are the blueprints for that $5000 cruise missile on the Australian website. It has a range of 100 miles. I think it very likely someone could adapt that design.
      • On the flip-side, that's hardly the same as a COTS model rocket from Wal-Mart. We're talking about very very different ends of the spectrum, here, as if they were the

      • Not really true .... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by taniwha ( 70410 )
        first of all it's from New Zealand and secondly it's not a rocketpowered device - it's pulse jet powered (ie it's a V1 not a V2).

        Modern hobby rockets (like I and many others fly) do one thing well (and not even that) - they go up. We have wonderfull guidance devices called 'fins' they make things go straight provided they are fast enough and there's still air around - even then you're at the mercy of the wind, the jet stream as you pass thru it (yes we do) etc etc.

        In other words hobby rockets don't hav

        • Barnes Wallis played with corkscrew fins, to get the benefit of gyroscopic forces.


          You are right, though, and I think we're all agreed that this is a stupid, paranoid law to cover the backs of stupid, paranoid people, where the ones NOT affected are terrorists and the ones that are are the hobbyists and the American private sector.

    • I tell you what, after reading the list of people who seem to be wanting to ban it I would say they are wrong.

      Something has to be off when the Patriot Act republicans and the anti-gun democrats vehemently agree on something.
  • I wonder how many of us geeks will click add-to-cart tonight?
    • I want one, but I still need to clean out my workspace I'm planning to set up in the basement and clear out my kit backlog a bit. I'll probably try to pick up one of the Revell 1/96 Saturn 5 kits, though, and some accurization parts for it.

  • Reasons why I'm not impressed: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:29PM (#7364489) Homepage
    1) Solid rocket engines. They have made Peroxide+Gasoline rocket engines in small scale. Use one of them. At the very least a pressure fed John Carmack special [armadilloaerospace.com] style engine.
    2) One stage. The Saturn V has 3 stages. This one, and all of the injection-molded toys before it, were only 1 stage. Where's the fun in that?
    3) Injection molding. Where's the work in that?
    • Well to paraphrase a rather sad movie "you call that [apogeerockets.com] a rocket, .... this [taniwha.com] is a rocket

    • Obviously you're not a model rocketeer:) There are several reasons for using solid rocket motors in this kit:

      1. This kit (I'm assuming; can't get to the site:) is aimed at non-high power certified members of the NAR (National Association of Rocketry) and TRA (Tripoli Rocketry Association). Non-solid non-premanufactured engines are not allowed for these classes of member at events sanctioned by either, and using them on your own is a good way to get your insurance cancelled. At Level 1 certification in eith
    • One stage. The Saturn V has 3 stages. This one, and all of the injection-molded toys before it, were only 1 stage. Where's the fun in that?
      Hmmm... The 3 stages of the Saturn V are disposable and have no recovery chutes. Seeing your $225 rocket return safely as a $12 command module.... Where's the fun in that?
  • I remember the good ol' days of rocket launching, always a blast; Estes was awesome back in the day. Have any of you seen the movie October Sky, that was an excellent film. Anyways, they had all kinds of scale rockets, and planes, nowhere near this detail though, but fun none the less.

    • Re:Good ol' rocket days (Score:4, Funny)

      by xyote ( 598794 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @11:58PM (#7365094)
      See the movie October Sky? We were shooting steel pipes into the sky in those days (pre Estes). You took a keen interest in where those suckers came down. Mostly suger and salt peter fuel (hint don't cook this up in your kitchen unless you think soot from premature combustion is a nice decorative motif) but we had an Explorer post sponsored by IBM with geek IBM engineers as advisors with unlimited buget. Bad idea. Dialog right out of Real Genius. "Oh, don't breath any of that zinc powder. It's microgranulated and highly toxic". "Yeah, your finger will stick instantly to the strain gauge if you touch that new instant glue Kodak just invented. Let's get the razor blade and unstick your finger." "Aieeee...".
  • I remember getting the Estes Saturn V kit around 1971. Not detailed ? How about cutting long balsa rods exactly to spec then gluing them together to form that steel lattice work at the top of the rocket. That's detail. I never managed to complete it cause it had about 841,231 pieces. It also took about $5 in engines which in 1971 was a lot of money for a kid. LouSir
  • I was one of the rare few that tried (repeat TRIED) to build the Estes Saturn V kit. It was incredibly difficult, even if you weren't 9 years old like I was. It was almost impossible to cut and roll the little paper cones just right. And that escape tower lattice made from little toothpicks, yow, I just couldn't get it right. I put it in the closet where it gathered dust, and was eventually dumped by my parents. I recently learned that original Estes kits, even partially assembled ones, were being bought fo
    • Oops, in retrospect, I guess it was the Saturn 1B kit because I remember gluing together the multiple tubes in the first stage. I don't think Estes even made a SatV model, just the Sat1B. The 1B was a way cooler rocket anyway. The new company makes both, and none of those lame multiple D engines, just a single F or G engine.
      Oh the rocket memories this brings back. But if I built it, it would probably be just like the most complex kit I ever built, the Estes Bomarc. I spent weeks making it absolutely perfect
      • I've still got a Saturn V kit in my closet (just checked, and yes that's what it is). It's about halfway built, but apparently has survived the past five years fine. Is it really worth anything?

        On the other hand, I now seem to have more than enough time on my hands to finish it. Maybe I'll bust out the ole' glue tube out again. And put some in a bag.

        (inhales deeply)
        -Brett

        • Re:I NEED one of these (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sakusha ( 441986 )
          Is it only 5 years old? IIRC, it has to be one of the original 1970s kits to be worth anything. If it's 5 years old, it's probably still in production and thus less valuable. But put it up on eBay and see what you get. Or better yet, finish it, but not with the multiple Estes D motors, which were almost impossible to light simultaneously, rip that crap out and put in a mount for a single G engine.
          Anyway, the coolest rocket I ever built was also the last kit I ever built, a very simple design of a 2-stage ro
        • I checked around eBay and it looks like the Sat V kits are a dime a dozen (well, NIB $50 anyway). It's the Saturn 1B that's the real rarity. Apparently the S1B wasn't as popular as its big brother, so it was discontinued after a short time and never reissued like the SV.
          I found a site that offers plans for almost all the Estes rockets, if you want to build one from raw parts, or just gawk at the complex instructions that stumped me when I was just a little kid.
          http://www.dars.org/jimz/estes.htm
          Unfortu n atel
    • I caught the site coming halfway back up, and before that I got a 500, so I'm thinking it's genuinely slashdotted. That's okay, it'll still be in older stuff tomorrow.
    • A friend at school actually completed one. We took it out to the launch pad, and launched. It went up perfectly. But the 'chute never opened, and it came down just as perfect. *Straight* down. It accordianed to only one foot in height.

    • Re:I NEED one of these (Score:5, Funny)

      by l810c ( 551591 ) * on Friday October 31, 2003 @11:00PM (#7364903)
      I remember this one well, even though it's been 30 years. I actually finished it. It took me a couple of weeks.

      We brought it down to the field at the end of the street. When it launched, it quickly shot up to about twelve(yes 12) feet and begun spinning in circles wildly in place at first then right towards us. Just missed my brother as he dove behind the dirt mound that it slammed into and shattered all my hard work.

      Probably my poor construction that caused the misfire. And what a range of emotions in those few quick moments:

      Surprise -> Scared Shitless -> Elation -> Sadness

      Speaking of the Sadness after the crash, I just thought I'd mention this as I just remembered and it made me laugh again. A few years later my brother got into model airplane building. These things were a Ton of work. He brought his plane down to the elementary school as they had a nice wide open space. About 15 seconds into flight it banks left and smashes into a tree completely wasting it. He builds a second plane, back to school, 15 seconds, smashes into side of school.

  • Build your own Saturn V cheaper! (Score:5, Funny)

    by tsangc ( 177574 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:46PM (#7364581)
    http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?p=7468 :)
  • Look at this toy r/c jet aircraft [ehobbies.com] they make. I wonder how well its jetfan engine works. Has anybody tried one?
    • Not like that. I have flown scale lear jet kits that had ducted fan engines that were gas powered. However, at $15 a gallon for the special fuel, it got expensive and I went back to prop jobs that used regular ole 2-cycle fuel (gas with oil mixture like you put into your chain saw).

      This was like 10 years ago, the engines were a tad bit under powered and expensive. I think that plane took about 5 months and $6000 with engines and all to put together. It flew fine, but couldn't do any fancy manouvers.

    • not really a jet (Score:3, Informative)

      by rebelcool ( 247749 )
      a real jet takes air and compresses it and explodes it with a fuel mixture.

      that said, there *are* RC jets. They're hideously expensive and tempermental and so fast as to be very difficult to fly. Only extremely experienced fanatics can build and fly them.

      This company [microjeteng.com] builds actual micro jet engines.

  • well last time it was tried they did [moonrace2001.org] (the american's wimped out :-)

  • Still good in the rerun (Score:4, Interesting)

    by poptones ( 653660 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @10:14PM (#7364709) Journal
    This is a really old story. I don't recall if I read it here or on ars, but I first read about this thing a really, really long time ago (like maybe July, 2002?)

    Anyway, it's worth the trip to follow the links to the website of the people who make this thing. There are some fantastic MPEG clips of flights of this model that (were, maybe not are) available for download.

    Why is it so cool to watch a model fly? Check it out and see. The thing is so big nad heavy it "lifts off" just like a "real" rocket. None of this 3-2-1 disappear in a puff of smoke. You actually get several frames of liftoff before it really picks up speed... very cool.

  • This explains it (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So, this is what Apogee have been up to... now we know why Duke Nukem Forever is taking so long.

  • scaled servers (Score:3, Funny)

    by skydude_20 ( 307538 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @10:38PM (#7364829) Journal
    even their servers were built to a minature scale, not the big real machines needed for a good ol' slashdotting...

    mirrors please?

  • booster models (Score:4, Interesting)

    by igny ( 716218 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @10:57PM (#7364890) Homepage Journal
    I would be interested in a working 1:60 (~1/60^3 in weight) model of the most powerful launch vehicle in the world [energia.ru]. Imagine:

    Standing ~40 inches (1.0 meters) tall and weighing about 10 kilograms (quite chubby) at launch...

    If the scale doesnt matter in laws of physics one can expect a useful payload to be ~ 100t/60^3 ~ 460grams ~ 1 pound to be launched to low orbits, and about 100 grams to the geostationary orbit, and about 150 grams to be sent on the lunar mission trajectory.

  • how about a 1x scale version (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ksheff ( 2406 ) * on Friday October 31, 2003 @11:09PM (#7364935) Homepage

    NASA needs something to launch big heavy payloads into space. The shuttles are ok, but a unmanned vehicle would be extremely useful for shipping new sections to the ISS or a hubble replacement.

    • Uhh, cause the Saturn's were extremely expensive and mostly trashed after each flight. Only in the 60's would you have such garguatuan levels of waste.
    • To launch every last nut and bolt of the (complete) ISS, plus some, to a higher, much stabler orbit. But nooooo, NASA has to stick with Krikkit One..err...the Space Shuttle. If they could recover and reuse the lower stages (dunno how F-1 engines like saltwater though), we'd be set.

  • Well... (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    I'd be more interested if the scale was 1:1 (without changing the price from the model version)

    As for the Govt rules against rocketry - this is hardly a surprise. I'm amazed it didn't occur much sooner. There's a certain paranoia about aircraft being blown out the sky, or "rogue" nations developing new rocket technology.

    However, since the same Government publishes software on how to simulate and design remotly operated vehicles, and since the Australian Govt was quite OK with budget cruise missile plans

    • I'd be more interested if the scale was 1:1 (without changing the price from the model version)
      WOW, you would need FAA approval just to stand the thing upright!
    • You are quite right. It wouldn't be nice to be underneath one of these things when it fell, but how many grams of explosive could it carry?

      Mortars tend to be more favored than rockets by terrorists (they are easier to aim, and can carry more payload as the fuel doesn't go up with it). I have no issues on restrictions on where rocketry can be practiced, but it really doesn't need any further controls until we talk about payloads of a kg or more.

      • I very much agree, on all points.

        Britain has far more experience on terrorism than the US, and I honestly don't recall rockets ever being a significant component. Mortars, yes -- and they were amazingly inaccurate.

        By far the nastiest type of weapon used by terrorists in the UK was also one of the most trivial. A simple bomb with a timer, dropped in a bin somewhere. It got to the point, in the UK, where bins were simply removed from crowded areas and those that were left were heavily reinforced with mult

  • For the first milli-second I thought "Wow, a life size Saturn V Rocket!", the second thought I had was "I need more money and a bigger back yard". After half a second I caught on.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Rocket Simulation Software is also available (Score:3, Informative)

    by shancock ( 89482 ) * on Saturday November 01, 2003 @05:50AM (#7365851)
    I've been into model rocketry for about two years now with my 12 year old son. It is great fun for both of us. Like most other hobbies, it can be approached from many levels with equal enjoyment. We got the rocket simulation software (Rock Sim) from Apogee last year. It allows you to build model rockets on the software (3D) (using standard parts from hobby stores) and test their flight and return to earth (just as important in models as in real rockets). You can then save and print out the details. There is a demo available on Apogees' site.

    Our problem has been in finding good places to launch. We get rained out alot from local rocket club launches and its hard to find places to shoot on our own. We sometimes sneak over to nearby schools with their large playgrounds early on Sunday mornings to launch. Risky in post 9/11 USA.

    Going to local rocket club launches is also fun. Not only can you shoot your own rockets off but you can watch the big and experimental rockets launching.

    A good source of beginner rockets and hybrid motors for the big boys is Pratt Hobbies. www.pratthobbies.com.

  • ..the 1:1 scale version of this?
  • "Only a few rocketeers alive today were lucky enough to actually witness the event of a Saturn V lifting off into space."

    Last time I looked the final launch of a Saturn V was in November 1973 (40th Anniversary coming up. Embarassing one possibly). I'm 46 and I witnessed a launch back in 1971... so you don't have to be that old to have seen one...

  • With no guidance, a tube rocket with no fins is marginally stable at best. They must launch it at high thrust with quick burnout, like most model rockets.

    It would be cool to have one with a guidance system. Then you could have a slow, realistic liftoff, with the vehicle balanced on its rockets.

Slashdot Top Deals

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Close