18 ms·
Concordia students set to launch most powerful rocket developed by civilians
- soperj 4y agoPretty cool school project!
- mgsouth 4y ago> "Starsailor has already set a world record for being the first rocket engine developed and fired by civilians, when it was initially tested in 2021." Say what? Obviously something got garbled between the students and the Media Relations office. > "The team’s current goal is to make history by launching the first student-built, liquid-fuelled rocket to cross the boundary between the Earth’s atmosphere and into outer space, known as the Kármán line." That didn't sound likely, either. And no; USC would like a word with them (2019). [1] [Edit: Ah, cute. USC had a solid rocket engine.] Further edit: Not to belittle the team's chops. A liquid-fueled engine is a lot more difficult that a solid motor. And, the team has showed a lot of perserverence in their journey. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/a-rocket-built-by-students-reached-space-for-the-first-time/ https://www.wired.com/story/a-rocket-built-by-students-reach...
- mcarmichael 4y agoIndeed. This marketing copy is spectacularly over-reaching. Canada has a proud history in sounding rockets; I wonder if comparisons to that military research work were the stepping-off point here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Brant_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Brant_(rocket) Canada also has prior non-military liquid-fueled rocket engine development worthy of note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arrow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD0ChIZnPLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD0ChIZnPLY That project also originated in a prize competition context; it's great to see Space Concordia persevering with their effort on its own merits. Addendum: A much more reality-tethered description of the group's achievements as of a couple of years ago: https://www.pccomposites.com/space-concordia-fires-most-powerful-student-rocket-engine-in-the-world/ https://www.pccomposites.com/space-concordia-fires-most-powe...
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago>marketing copy is spectacularly over-reaching Like all those medical studies that need "in mice" appended to the title, you need to add a "in Canada" for many institutions here. There's no shortage of breathless coverage to go around.
- honkler 4y agocanadians on downvote rampage
- MonkeyMalarky 4y agoIt's like a paradox: Nearly every Canadian can recite a laundry list of grievances they have with Canadian news media but if you actually make any of those accusations, welp, you're not being super-chipper-patriotic enough and get hit with the DVs.
- 908B64B197 4y ago> Canada also has prior non-military liquid-fueled rocket engine development worthy of note: Non-military... for Canada only, not necessarily for it's allies and partners like China. The Canadian government is known to close it's eyes to dual intent technology transfers to China[0]. Good thing here in America there's ITAR[1] keeping these technologies from the hands of such bad actors. Canadian universities are also known to host and subsidize degrees for a significant number of Iranian nationals studying aerospace and nuclear engineering, for peaceful purposes I suppose. The Iranian drones currently used in Ukraine by the Russians seem to point toward technology transfers from Canada[2]. > Indeed. This marketing copy is spectacularly over-reaching. From the tittle and skimming the article I assumed they were claiming to be the first student-led group to reach the Karman Line, completely ignoring USC's record in 2019. Then, I realized they meant with a liquid fuel engine, thus making it a real first (albeit on a technicality). Then actually reading the article I realized the rocket doesn't actually exist and the funding for is hasn't even been secured. They did perform a static test for the engine, but that's not the same as a real flight by any stretch. Then the article gets really weird, with statements like: "With the ability to deliver 65 kilograms of scientific payload to over 135 kilometres in space, Starsailor is in the same class as United States suborbital launch companies' rocket-powered vehicles." Which sounds true except some of these rockets are actually flying. I guess if Starsailor does liftoff and performs to spec it'll be of the same class. Also why aren't they naming any of the companies? Fear of lawsuits? And then there's the name dropping at the end "The student-led team has scored an impressive number of wins since its inception in 2014, beating other universities such as Stanford, MIT, Caltech and McGill." I wonder why they went with that list of Universities (to get the right keyword in the article?). I mean, I don't think MIT or Caltech talks about Concordia in it's press releases... And no mention of USC who accomplished a similar goal? [0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-chinese-military-scientists-canadian-universities/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-chinese-mil... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_... [2] https://montrealgazette.com/news/canada/iranian-drones-canadian-company https://montrealgazette.com/news/canada/iranian-drones-canad...
- angry_moose 4y agoBased on the gofundme, I think an editor replaced "largest" with "first" > Starsailor's engine was first successfully tested in the summer of 2021. The test became a world-record-setting event: the largest rocket engine developed and fired by civilians. The wording of the last clause is identical other than that word. Even then its a bit of a stretch, I assume by "civilian" they mean something like "non-commercial hobbyist". https://www.gofundme.com/f/starsailor https://www.gofundme.com/f/starsailor
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- marmetio 4y agoThey should have defined the terminology. A rocket _engine_ is turbomachinery. A rocket _motor_ is a lump of solid propellant in a pressure vessel.
- stevespang 4y ago[dead]
- Manuel_D 4y ago"Developed by Civilians" meaning students and hobbyists? Last time I checked SpaceX is a private company, as are Boeing and other big aerospace companies. Sure, dual-use technology often have government and defense customers, but civilian-built launches for comms satellites are far from uncommon.
- ummonk 4y agoYeah I think they meant hobbyist or non-commercial.
- mr_toad 4y agoNASA is also a civilian organisation.
- kube-system 4y agoTo give them the benefit of the doubt, “civilian” can be used as a synonym for “non government” rather than the more narrow “non military”. Though many frown on this usage.
- Taniwha 4y agoOr it could just be a press release for Canadian consumption
- GauntletWizard 4y agoI would also classify Robert Goddard as a civilian.
- Fatnino 4y agoHis stuff didn't even break 10,000 feet.
- p_l 4y agoNone of the rockets from the big defence contractors were built without DoD money paying for R&D, though. Even Artemis uses portions of STS which was developed with DoD money. So "not taking military money" could be a viable categorisation for it being first "civilian" rocket.
- bilsbie 4y agoI find it confusing how much large corporations can accomplish vs groups of hobbyists. They’re both just groups of people.
- mLuby 4y agoWith orders of magnitude differences in money and work hours they can bring to bear on problems. Is that surprising?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- quartesixte 4y agoAnd sometimes the hobbyists will beat out the corporations a la open source software. But yes money + fear of being fired can be a powerful motivator.
- goodpoint 4y agoWhat about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Suborbitals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Suborbitals?
- ginkgotree 4y agoI think whoever wrote this article has never heard of Tripoli. Albeit, a liquid fueled engine is quite an accomplishment. The article should have focused on that.
- simlevesque 4y agoChina will be happy. We learned yesterday that they work hand in hand. "Canadian universities conducting joint research with Chinese military scientists" https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-chinese-military-scientists-canadian-universities/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-chinese-mil...
- mattmaroon 4y agoWhy doesn’t this header use the article’s not incorrect actual title rather than a clearly incorrect line from the article written by a journalist who does not seem to know the meaning of the word “civilian”?
- ck2 4y agoAll these needle shaped rockets by students/amateurs make me wonder since I've seen flat shaped drones go vertical at incredible speed if there might be another way to use vertical lift at least within the atmosphere using millisecond reaction controllers. The needle shape really limits payload. If it could be wider but use the outer surface as some kind of physics trick to multiply lift, that could change everything. Mass weight still is a factor but would allow a wider range of payload shapes.
- ben_w 4y agoDrones generate lift by pushing against the air, rockets are trying to get past as much of the air as possible because orbit involves going sideways so fast that, even though the satellites are always falling, they keep missing the ground. That necessary speed is such that even air too thin to generate helpful lift[0] is ram-compressed to be thick and hot enough to cut exactly, non-metaphorically, like a blowtorch. [0] Maximum heating during re-entry is 55-80km, less than the Karman line but still higher than non-rocket-powered aircraft. Not exactly the same thing, but gives you a useful comparison point.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- quartesixte 4y agoStrange use of the word civilian. Aren’t private companies similarly civilian? That being said, if they truly beat out Kestrel (or are they referencing Merlin 1A?) that’s no small feat.
- benj111 4y agoSince when did 'civilian' == amateur? You could sort of exclude NASA and other govt agencies from the civilian qualifier, but spacex? Blue origin? All the other private space companies?
- p_l 4y agoSpaceX wouldn't get anywhere without military contracts, not sure about Blue Origin. Many other recent rocket startups have also went for DoD money.
- yywwbbn 4y agoAFAIK Ariane is also non military. Of course the program is government funded but it seems fairly ‘civilian’
- p_l 4y agoAriane 5 IIRC was the first that wasn't built from ICBMs - previous was built from ICBM projects retargeted for space launch, and ofc all the rocketry tech base in the manufacturing companies is still from ICBM manufacture.
- benj111 4y agoNuclear energy is an offshoot of bomb development. We still differentiate between civilian and military nuclear though. Computing got its start in the military, is Apple a military company?
- p_l 4y agoI'm differentiating mostly on who paid for the development in particular company, and would that development exist without military. Apple doesn't fall under that (even though they survived 1990s heavily thanks to federal sales, iirc) - they build the company on top of consumer market. Compare this with SpaceX where DoD funding was crucial or most of other US launch vehicles that trace directly to early ICBMs. Ariane was built by companies from defense sector continuing development started from ICBM work - but Arianespace was purposeful pivot into pure commercial, civilian vendor (though subcontracting to defense industry still). As for nuclear, civilian reactors aren't much of offshoot of bomb production except for using the same physical processes underneath.
- kwhitefoot 4y agoCopenhagen Suborbitals has been launching crowdfunded liquid fuelled rockets for years. Not quite as big as Concordia is proposing but interesting nonetheless: https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/ https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/
- runako 4y agoInteresting tidbit from that site: "No crewed spacecraft has ever been developed and flown from Europe."
- IYasha 4y agoOkay, but will they finally settle the Earth curvature debate? :)