[.22]copenhagen suborbitals Heat 1x Tycho Brahe v1.1!

[Jahulath]

I think he meant more like rockets in general, not your rockets specifically. However, that development has gone on for many years (I am too lazy to calculate how many years ago 1946 was). I don't understand his post, but he may just have gotten his facts wrong. Or something.

Yup, facts all wrong, apparently I got it mixed up with the Minotaur launchers. Not that it matters, Copenhagen Suborbitals is still all full of win.

[tjitte]

v1.1 update out now!

added heat 1X hybrid rocked booster, and a decoupler that fits nicly

[Kerbal01]

Pics or it Didn't happen.

[tjitte]

yes,yes they have arived!

[rpayne88]

But is not having a view not an advantage?

Btw. Space capsules aren't that cramped anymore.

And I doubt I could scratch my head in that one. (unable to lift my arms)

Let me point this out: It would be the trip of your lifetime (well, most probably the last trip).But, in opposite to rockets, cars and planes do not tent to explode randomly. Even if Hollywood says otherwise. Actually It takes a lot of effort to make a car explode, well crashing planes can create an explosion since the fuel gets mechanically mixed with air (impact) and there is also a ignition source (running engine) which is also the reason why the fuel is dumped. But in general they don't explode unless its provoked from the inside (bomb) or outside (e.g. missile).

Which (fuel dumping) is not an option on a rocket. 1. While dumped fuel from a plane is burnable but not explosive (at least not near the plane) the dumped fuel from a rocket contains an oxygen source (aka. oxidizer) which makes the mixture highly explosive. 2. The dumped fuel from a plane does not pass the engine (ignition source) however on a rocket it does (gravity can be bitch sometimes).

Before I use something like this it has to be proven as (potential*) safe. It does't have to be save as a plane but at least as safe as a car.

*=In statistics is often used "deaths / number of persons used" which makes the plane safer than the car. That same statistics might make that rocket the safest cause no one ever died while using it. (cause no one ever used it)

May I add my two cents?

The capsule is incredibly cramped. It would be incredibly difficult to escape in the event of an emergency while on the pad or shortly after touch/splashdown. Also, the window, or rather, canopy, is HUGE. There is a reason why windows on other spacecraft are so small. The extreme pressure differential between the cabin and the exterior requires an extremely strong window to stay intact. Next up has already been said: redundancy. A single parachute for a manned spacecraft. Are you kidding me? Just about every manned spacecraft ever launched (correct me if I'm wrong) has had at least one reserve or redundant parachute. No LES either. Finally, there is the orientation of the pilot during flight. Why is the pilot's spinal column aligned with the spacecraft's vector. Every other spacecraft has the crew's spinal columns perpendicular to the acceleration (more or less.) Although I'm sure the g's are not this extreme, do you know what happens to a fighter pilot if he ejects? He/ she will be noticeably shorter due to his/ her spinal column compressing due to the g's pulled during ejection.

All this coming from a person who jumps at any opportunity I get to fly, much less go into space. The only way you would get me into that capsule would be by force.

Edit: by your formula, its safety is "undefined." You can't divide by zero.

Edited November 13, 2013 by rpayne88
Added some math

[tjitte]

you are right, as is the rest. this capsule looks dangerous and without doing any math or test you can probably conclude that this isn't the best idea. but if you start looking a little bit closer you see that it's not only about getting someone into space with this, but learn from why not to.

by actualy making and testing something radical you know why it doesn't work and how to make something that is worth trying next time.

I think by doing what they are doing and how they are doing it, copenhagen suborbitals deserve respect, and definitely our support

[CERVERUS]

...copenhagen suborbitals deserve respect, and definitely our support

I agree!!!

[XanderTek]

The fuel ratios on the Heat1x appear to be off. The engine takes 1.75 times as much oxidizer as solidfuel, but the rocket contains 40 solidfuel and 106 oxidizer.