ULA Interns Launch Record-Breaking 50-Foot Rocket (space.com) 79
schwit1 writes: A team of United Launch Alliance (ULA) interns, working in their spare time, have successfully launched the largest model rocket every built. Space.com reports: "On Sunday (July 24), ULA launched the 50-foot-tall (15.24 meters) Future Heavy rocket out of Fort Carson Army Post, breaking the record for 'the largest sport rocket launched anywhere in the world,' according to a statement from ULA. The Future Heavy is also notable because it was built entirely by company interns and their mentors. 'We like [our interns] to have a very realistic experience,' ULA President and CEO Tory Bruno told Space.com at the Space Symposium meeting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, last April." Calling it a "model rocket" really isn't fair. The thing is big, and really ranks up there with many of the suborbital rockets NASA used to routinely fly out of Wallops Island. [The fact that] ULA has provided support for this effort again suggests that the leadership of Bruno is reshaping the company into a much more innovative and competitive company.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, kids, Science is Lies straight from the Pit of Hell!
Real Americans don't mess around with chemicals or electronics, that's what outsourcing to Communist China is for! REAL Americans only mess around with guns. That's 'cause we've got FREEDOM!
So kids, if you See Something, Say Something! Report it immediately to the Department of Fatherland Security. Even if it's you're own parents! We'll arrest those damn Liberal Terrorists and give you a nice shiny medal!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Model rocket" eh (Score:5, Insightful)
The German V-2 rocket [wikipedia.org] was smaller than this thing, and it's been accurately described as the first successful ballistic missile.
It just goes to show, depending on who builds it, something may be an enlightened amateur rocket or a dangerous enemy weapon.
Re: (Score:1)
The two are incomparable. The V2 was a power beast, fuelled by ethanol/water and liquid oxygen, it flew far higher and much further while at the same time carrying a heavy payload.
(V2 verses Future Heavy - lateral range 350 Km verses maybe 5 Km, altitude ceiling 200 Km verses 3 Km, Payload 1 ton (1000 Kg) verses maybe 20 Kg)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As the old saying goes, "it's not how big it is, it's how you use it".
Re: (Score:3)
I think that the term "Model Rocket" is the problem. What is it a model of?
In fact the Saturn V at nearly 3000 tons is the largest model rocket. It is a 1:1 scale model of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the term "Model Rocket" is the problem. What is it a model of?
In fact the Saturn V at nearly 3000 tons is the largest model rocket. It is a 1:1 scale model of itself.
I agree. If something accelerates itself by spraying some sort of propellant out its backside without sucking it in from the outside first, it's an actual rocket, no matter how small it may be. A model rocket, by contrast, might be whittled out of wood, or molded out of plasticine.
Of course, an actual rocket might also happen to be a model of something, mostly likely another rocket. In that case, it'd be a rocket model and a model rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
A model rocket is an unhealthfully skinny rocket paid to display the latest paint jobs at "launchpad" shows. Sometimes they fall over during the shows.
Yes, in model rocketry there's a lot of pressure to lower your mass fraction, which leads to unhealthy behaviors like covert propellant dumping, but only a few of the models are actually clinically hypergolic.
Re: (Score:2)
It just goes to show, depending on who builds it, something may be an enlightened amateur rocket or a dangerous enemy weapon.
That's ridiculous. For one thing, this is an amateur rocket because they were not paid to build it. Even more importantly, where the device is aimed and what it is supposed to do when it gets there, is what determines if it is a weapon or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Most importantly, is the obvious presence of an explosive warhead on the V-2 and its absence on a hobby rocket (or any other rocket that isn't thought of as a weapon).
Had these interns put a 910 kg explosive warhead on this thing, I'm sure people would consider it a dangerous weapon, even if they never aimed it at anyone or intended it to explode when it arrived.
Re: (Score:1)
It just goes to show, depending on who builds it, something may be an enlightened amateur rocket or a dangerous enemy weapon.
- false. This rocket is long, but it only weighs 1200 pounds [natureworldnews.com]. V-2 weighed almost 27,600 pounds and it had a 1000kg warhead on it that could be delivered to a 300km distance from launch.
I don't think it's just the name here that makes the difference.
Re:"Model rocket" eh (Posted in wrong place bfr) (Score:1)
The two are incomparable. The V2 was a power beast, fuelled by ethanol/water and liquid oxygen, it flew far higher and much further while at the same time carrying a heavy payload.
(V2 verses Future Heavy - lateral range 350 Km verses maybe 5 Km, altitude ceiling 200 Km verses 3 Km, Payload 1 ton (1000 Kg) verses maybe 20 Kg)
(Posted in wrong place before!)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually they meant Avery. A guy called Avery made it, and it's the largest Avery built.
Isn't the Top Gear shuttle bigger ? (Score:4, Informative)
Supposed to be a 1/5 th model of the Shuttle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The SRBs were 150ft tall, so 1/5 would make it only 30 feet. But there are two of them!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to this, with the exce
SpaceX interns (Score:2)
Meh. The SpaceX interns got theirs to land tail-first and is reusable!
ULA: Please give us good press! (Score:2)
Their whole marketing department has probably come down with depression over the last few years, so it's clearly time to trot out the interns doing something fun and not particularly consequential. Maybe next year they'll do a viral video.
(For the record, I'd like to see them doing well again. The more competition at the cutting edge, the better. But they got complacent, and it looks like SpaceX is about to eat the rest of their lunch, with Blue Origin possibly stealing a bit, too.)
HA! (Score:5, Interesting)
. [The fact that] ULA has provided support for this effort again suggests that the leadership of Bruno is reshaping the company into a much more innovative and competitive company.
No, what it means is that they are getting their asses beaten so badly by SpaceX that they have moved to desperation and PR tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
. [The fact that] ULA has provided support for this effort again suggests that the leadership of Bruno is reshaping the company into a much more innovative and competitive company.
No, what it means is that they are getting their asses beaten so badly by SpaceX that they have moved to desperation and PR tactics.
I see it as an attempt to keep their workforce engaged. I have worked on long-term (18month-30months before anything exciting happens) projects before and it is a long grind without a lot of incremental satisfaction. Even a company-paid milestone dinner every few months was a major morale booster since there was very little concrete evidence of all the work people were putting in. Employee turnover is very damaging to this type of long-term project, so launching a small rocket every now and then might be
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has different jobs, but I would not have had spare time for outside activities.
"And their mentors" (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't understand the negativity in many posts here (Score:2)
Couple of friggin' interns built a working rocket. That means a lot of math needing to be done right, a lot of engineering problems to overcome, a lot of thinking to be done, a lot of self-reliance and a spraying of some of the gung-ho proverbial of the rocket industry. I'm taking my hat off and making a large flourish.
Re: (Score:1)
"built entirely by company interns and their mentors" means the company funded it and the experienced engineers did the hard part.
Regarding the negativity, it's just one idiot. He obsessively posts the same crap in every story. Slashdot really should require people log in to post, even if they want to post AC. Then they can be tracked and banned.
Not negativity - just realism (Score:3)
Couple of friggin' interns built a working rocket.
Not by themselves they didn't. They got help from experienced engineers and someone else funded it. It's kind of like US First competitions where much of the heavy lifting is actually done by real engineers and the students watch and (hopefully) learn and help out where they can. Now these interns are undoubtedly FAR more capable than a high school student and probably did quite a lot of the actual work but they also undoubtedly had a lot of help.
It's not negativity, it's just that pretending that a bunc
Re: (Score:2)
College vs real world (Score:2)
When I was an intern, I was often the one doing the heavy lifting because I was up on the latest technology having learned it only months or weeks prior instead of having to learn about it from a journal using decades old math skills
Please point me at any college program where they teach you the real details in how to build an actual working rocket using the latest technology. I'm sure these interns are smart people and I'm sure they did a very substantial amount on this project. I'm equally sure that the rocket would never have flown if it wasn't for some very experienced (literal) rocket scientists helping out. The "latest technology" in rocketry typically is not taught in schools. That's why this is such a great project - it all
still a better rocket than DPRK DONG (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The article uses confusing terminology. There are three classes of rockets (in the USA). The lowest is "model rocketry". For this you can build any airframe you want, but you can only use off the shelf engines up to size 'G'. Then there is high power rocketry. For that you can again make your own airframe and you can use engines up to class O. These first two classes must use *premade* motors. Though there are provisions in High Power for engines with consumable parts and durable parts--so the whole
Not a 'model' rocket... (Score:2)
Working model is still a model (Score:2)
A model rocket would have no function and would just sit there on a display stand...
You seem confused. You can build a working model of something. I've built an Estes model of a Saturn V rocket that flew. Not a very accurate model but a working model all the same.
Now calling this a "model" rocket doesn't make sense unless it is modeling some other rocket. Really this is just a rocket, not a model rocket.
Apparently (Score:2)
Size does, in fact, matter
Engine spec...? (Score:2)
What type of engine was used? Hybrid? Bi-liquid?
Obligatory Top Gear Reference (Score:2)
Yes, yes, that's all very nice, but did it have a Reliant Robin attached to it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
N. Korea might steal the plans... (Score:2)
Not a "Model Rocket" (Score:2)
. . .at least by the definitions used by the FAA. See CFR 14, 101.22 [ecfr.gov], viz.:
101.22 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this subpart:
(a) Class 1—Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that:
(1) Uses no more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant;
(2) Uses a slow-burning propellant;
(3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic;
(4) Contains no substantial metal parts; and
(5) Weighs no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces), including the propellant.
(b) Class 2—High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model rocket that is propelled by a motor or motors having a combined total impulse of 40,960 Newton-seconds (9,208 pound-seconds) or less.
(c) Class 3—Advanced High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model rocket or high-power rocket.
Using these definitions, in the US the rocket is legally either a "High-Power Rocket" or an "Advanced High-Power Rocket", depending on the total impulse of the motor(s), but it is clearly not a "Model Rocket."
PR stunt. ULA is getting spanked by SpaceX (Score:2)