X-Wing Rocket Launches, Disintegrates 240
An anonymous reader writes "Remember the 21-foot X-Wing with four rocket engines? It launched yesterday from Plaster City and here's the video showing what many thought inevitable: total destruction in mid-air. From the post: "I can only say two things. The first is: absolutely amazing. And the second: poor Porkins." "
Build a smaller one that works (Score:5, Informative)
For those who'd like to do something similar but on a much smaller scale, Estes [estesrockets.com] has done a number of smaller model rockets based on the Star Wars movies. A couple decent models are R2-D2 [amazon.com] and my favorite, Vader's TIE fighter [amazon.com]. But I would guess the most appropriate to this discussion would be the X Wing [ebay.com]
Re:Build a smaller one that works (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmlgN4DRk2Y [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It was brilliant, and is the sole reason I'm buying the Top Gear Challenges DVD... just for this challenge, brilliant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2007/01/stories/09/1.html [topgear.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
a few moments before the launch (Score:5, Funny)
\ X-Wing. May I help you? /
\ ____
\ / __ \
\ O| |O|
|| | |
|| | |
|| |
|___/
Yoda says.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, it 'flew' far enough that it was fun to watch. At least it didn't die 2 feet off the ground, like it could have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Modeling and simulation is my profession, and I'll be the first to say just because it does well in simulation might not mean anything esp if you models and simulations are messed up.
Indeed, I think the error in their simulation model is glaring and obvious. Doubtless they merely modeled aerodynamic stability and the sim assumed the structure would be perfectly rigid. One look at the construction pics, though, and it's clear that 4 rockets with enough thrust to lift the vehicle were going to twist those flimsy wings right off the body. These guys are model nerds. You'd think that one of them might have enough "intuitive engineering" in 'em to see the error of their approach, but perha
Re: (Score:2)
I think they said on their web page it had some sort of control surfaces(es) or something and that according to it's computer models it would fly. That was the my whole issue with it. Them saying a flying model of an X-wing and when you read a little deeper it "flew" in computer simulations. Modeling and simulation is my profession, and I'll be the first to say just because it does well in simulation might not mean anything esp if you models and simulations are messed up.
Yeah, especially when you're talking about variable geometry wings. This X-Wing's s-foils were designed to move into attack position in flight. That simply cannot be healthy. I'm no expert but it looked like the whole thing came apart due to aerodynamic forces, kind of like how the Challenger tore apart after the o-ring failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there always is."
I thought of this quote when I read the first story on how it "flew" in simulation. The real world can throw an infinite state machine at you, have you modeled it completely?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They should have left the targeting computer on. Dumb Star Wars nuts.
Obi-Wan's disembodied voice: "Luke! Use the targeting computer! That's what it's there for!"
Re: (Score:2)
A shame, but it happens. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they'll learn from the failure and build another one until they get it right.
That's pretty much the whole point of the hobby. If you don't have the occasional spectacular failure, you're probably not innovating enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Or motivated enough. I'm sure the Emperor could find new ways to motivate them though.
To shreds, you say? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh dear.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder where the CP/CG were ....
She'll hold together (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit, I think I need to kick the crap out of myself for that one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good Point, re: interstellar crap (Score:2)
This takes me back to the original "Waterworld" novelette (Analog, March, 1994, Lee Goodloe & Jerry Oltion), where a speck of dust goes through an interstellar colony ship like a small nuke, taking most of the volatiles with it. The remaining crew finds a melted iceball orbiting a gas giant, and drops a carbon/diamond straw to suck up some juice.
In every, damn, thread about an Xwing (Score:2)
aerodynamics are not a big issue when designing a spacecraft...
Man, I'm really tired of seeing that comment modded up: http://www.dvdactive.com/images/editorial/screenshot/2004/10/launch_copy1.jpg [dvdactive.com]
We see X-wings in atmo in the movies, but for some reason people feel compelled to ignore that and say "it's a spaceship, aerodynamics don't count" and others see this and instead of modding it down for being obviously wrong or ignoring it, they mod that crap up.
You guys call yourselves nerds? Dorks, maybe, but nerds would know x-wings can land and take off in atmospheres.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for Atlantis, it's also pretty much a helicopter.
90% of spacecraft in fiction than enter atmospheres work like helicopters once there, not planes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Spacecraft becomes Aircraft. (Score:5, Funny)
Whatever. I suppose with enough shields and inertia dampeners you can do almost anything.
No Kidding.
The stuff they did with Boston after mounting it on that guitar-shaped spaceframe are really impressive.
Reentry capability [images-amazon.com] after interstellar flight was a necessity, while hovering on pressor beams [vinylzart.com] simplified the search for a suitable landing area. The asteroid clearing capabilities [google.com] made manouvering in planetary ring systems possible and the debris shielding [cjnetworks.com] was impressive. Needed a little boost [cjnetworks.com] to get out of the atmosphere, though.
The early prototypes [mediaspin.com] weren't as sleek but worked pretty well, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's terrible when fiction is fictional. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What, you mean kinda like this [globalaircraft.org]?
Having huge weapons hanging anywhere off the wing doesn't "guarantee" any problem with aerodynamics. (Before you argue that the other missiles and fuel pods somehow dampen the vibration, the F-16 can fly with sidewinders alone. In fact, you can mount a heavier AIM-120 A
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the same thing, but consider how important aerodynamics are to the Space Shuttle.
Any ship that will need to descend to a place filled with air to drop off its passengers will need to be fairly aerodynamic. Or what about close-to-the-ground fighting on a planet with some atmosphere.
If it's going to look aerodynamic, it'd better be aerodynamic.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the same thing, but consider how important aerodynamics are to the Space Shuttle.
The space shuttle is all about the transition from ground to orbit. That's the entirety of its capability, and it does so only by the slimmest of margins (in the "spacecraft" sense). X-Wing fighters and the like are hyperspace capable deep-space fleet defense craft. Trans-atmospheric flight is a minor trifle encountered at the beginning and end of the mission, and only when based on a planet.
Any ship that will need to descend to a place filled with air to drop off its passengers will need to be fairly aerodynamic.
Unless it has the advantage of things like energy shields, repulsor lifts, and inertial dampeners. If the needs o
Re: (Score:2)
Darth Vader Quote... (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad they weren't engineers (Score:3, Informative)
With a bit of thought, pencil, paper, and a calculator (or slide rule) these folks could have built an X-Wing that really flew well again and again. But perhaps that wasn't their goal. Sometimes the goal is just to watch stuff blow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too bad they weren't engineers (Score:5, Interesting)
On a vehicle like the X-wing...which no one's ever done aerodynamic tests on...which has reverse facing wings...and pylons sticking out from them...and is shaped like a rocket with huge wings attached.
If you can estimate those forces easily and come up with it's coefficient of drag then I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too bad they weren't engineers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the design is "impossible", but it certainly can't be done with wood. At the least, the base frame and engine attachments should have been welded metal of some type, and the engines much larger to compensate for the weight.
It still wouldn't fly straight, but it wouldn't disintegrate 10 feet off the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only the ones that actually tried sitting in the cockpits. Real nerds know that you test things you are not absolutely certain will work with something/someone you don't mind breaking, e.g., jocks.
Re:Too bad they weren't engineers (Score:4, Interesting)
The early rocket experiments didn't have general guildlines to go from - and so they discovered problem after problem by experiment.
They also didn't have parts with known specifications - they were building their own engines which were often sources of problems.
An amateurer rocket designer today can buy off the shelf parts - and know exactly what their tolerances are. If their engines are certified to produce x N of force +/- y% then you can simply design for that. If they have a 99.99% reliability rate you don't need to worry about them just blowing up.
To me this whole thing sounded more like an exercise in amusement than trying to actually get a rocket off the ground. Nothing wrong with that - but it is hardly big news when the thing disintegrates in mid-air...
Re: (Score:2)
These aren't off-the-shelf parts. There are some M motors in commercial production, but motors in this class are often custom built. (usually because the commercial motors are very expensive and sometimes difficult to obtain)
Many of the parts aren't even intended for rocketry use, so you often don't know what the tolerances are. If you do, they're usually written for some other industry in mind
Re: (Score:2)
two items from video (Score:4, Funny)
and, if you listen carefully at the very end of the video, the announcer proclaims, "shit" over the loudspeaker
hilarious.
Re:two items from video (Score:5, Informative)
If he had said "Jesus Christ" it would have been profane. In this case we have common place vulgarity, from the Latin vulgris, of the common people, which leads us to the humor of the situation:
What is hilarious is an adult acting in the way everybody is commonly known to act, but from which children are enjoined.
On the other hand, one might observe that the word "profane" often refers in sociological contexts to those matters which are of an ordinary, day to day nature, as opposed to the sacred which is outside the realm of ordinary experience. Therefore one may learn the profane through observation, but the sacred is primarily learned through other people.
Thus, that the stars exceed Man's grasp is a profane fact; that Man should reach them is a sacred opinion, which is the moral of today's ironic shaggy dog post.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, obviously the ones that were were busy having sex.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I had one when I was a kid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was lame. (Score:5, Interesting)
That was lame. Even if it hadn't disintegrated early, it was on an arc that would have hit the ground in about five seconds.
Now if they'd built it as a large R/C model aircraft, it would have been cool. That's been done [rcuniverse.com] in a 24 inch wingspan model, so it's possible to fly that shape.
Re: (Score:2)
model rocketry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It did very well. (Score:2, Interesting)
of view I consider the construction itself as usable for further designs.
I think I can also come up with a possible solution why the construction collapsed.
The thrusters aren't to be blamed for this.
It's the X-shaped twin wing, which is the problem in here, with the increasing velocity the wind forces between the twin win
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Please... (Score:2, Funny)
Brings back memories. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wanted: New R2 unit (Score:3, Funny)
Send inquiries to L. Skywalker, Endor National Hospital.
The chute worked... (Score:3, Funny)
Incomplete! (Score:2)
Lucas used force to crush it (Score:2)
Can't... resist... (Score:2)
Obligatory misquote (Score:2)
Silly question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was launched unmanned.
Gratuitous... (Score:2)
Lucky ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Voices Crying Out (Score:2)
Oh shit... (Score:2)
And somewhere the X-prize contest organizers (Score:2)
Any Mirrors? (Score:2)
No, I'm not kidding -- nine external hosts. Who let that happen? Have they caught him yet?
Schwab
Direct Link to Video... (Score:3, Informative)
http://g.appleguru.org/x_wing_flight.mov [appleguru.org]
(5.7MB, H.264, AAC,
3-4 seconds of rocket burn? (Score:2)
clearer vid of the launch (Score:5, Informative)
Re:clearer vid of the launch (Score:4, Insightful)
It appears that had the airframe survived, the rocket motors would have boosted it to a respectable altitude, based on how far it got.
I'm shocked to see people standing so close to the launch point that they had to run from the falling debris; this bespeaks an insane lack of safety-consciousness by the operators (especially given their expressed doubts as to its surviving the launch.) They're fortunate no one was maimed.
With a much stronger wing-root design, they would probably have had a successful flight. The RC model sailplane design approach of a foam wing core, fiberglass cloth skin, and carbon-fiber wing spars might be used to good effect in such a design (lighter weight, more rigid wing). Having the rocket motors on the swings DOES add stress to that region, but that shouldn't be a show-stopper; the stress from drag on the wing (and from any flutter instability) is the major design issue there.
Neat project, for all its problems. I wonder if they'll try again?
And you thought that was bad.. (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4d8J7N5Sts [youtube.com]
Now when did you get a chance to come home and wifey asks you how was your drive, you can say "oh, had a rocket hit my van"?
And another one, a Goblin went rogue when it's motor mount tore loose. nice curlicues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqtNhcODfCk&mode=related&search=Polecat%20Goblin%20rocket [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More apropos sound... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)