
A Rocket Built by Students Reaches Space - curtis
https://www.wired.com/story/a-rocket-built-by-students-reached-space-for-the-first-time/
======
railsgirls112
This is similar to a project I've been a part of called Operation Space, the
difference being we are students not backed by one single university or
organization. We've been monitoring USC's progress for months and they have
been a great source of motivation, especially being that they held the
previous altitude record at 144,000 ft.

We are actually launching out of the same site in New Mexico in about a week
and looking to break the Karman Line and hopefully this new milestone. Link
for anyone interested:
[https://operationspace.org/](https://operationspace.org/)

~~~
breitling
Good luck! How expensive would something like this be? Is it something I can
casually do with my grown up kids on weekends?

~~~
railsgirls112
Thank you! I don't have exact figures handy but short answer no, not at this
scale at least. Manufacturing, design, materials, safety etc. all easily runs
in the tens of thousands of dollars. We are on a much tighter budget, but
AFAIK USC has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single launch.

~~~
wallace_f
The article doesn't really say anything to the parent commenter's question...

This was not possible years ago (the part about students being able to do it,
not nation states). What improvements in design and tech occured?

------
HubZemke
This is incorrect. The first student rocket to reach space was by the United
States Air Force Academy

[https://archive.is/20121212202343/http://www.af.mil/news/sto...](https://archive.is/20121212202343/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123176320)

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwuvfKuNqZxQQ2xudkwtQXB4V0k...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwuvfKuNqZxQQ2xudkwtQXB4V0k/view)

From here:

[https://twitter.com/skulumani/status/1131351960622391297?s=2...](https://twitter.com/skulumani/status/1131351960622391297?s=20)

~~~
fernandopj
The article seems to contradict it's own title:

> making the USC Rocket Lab only the second amateur group to ever send a
> rocket to space

~~~
EForEndeavour
I'd chalk it up to the ambiguity of natural language: "A Rocket Built by
Students Reached Space for the First Time" as in the _particular_ rocket
referred to in the title reached space for the first time in that rocket's
existence.

~~~
notahappycamper
That's being too generous. Other than spacex, essentially every rocket that
reaches space does so "for the first time". The title is intentionally
misleading

~~~
EForEndeavour
I strongly disagree. The article describes in detail the student group's years
of efforts to reach space, culminating in this success after years of
failures. Moreover, they're the first collegiate team to make it to space (and
the second "amateur" team).

The title is not intentionally misleading, just a bit ambiguous.

------
davidhyde
The rocket reached 103.57km (100km is considered the edge of space) in
altitude to spare anyone from reading this extremely annoying article. The
solid fuel based rocket weighed 136kg and at just under 4m in height is
impressively small for reaching this altitude. It’s parachutes deployed an it
was recovered safely. There.

~~~
wallace_f
The article really is so annoying, and not just for that reason. There are no
links or references to the technological advancements made here along the way.
Another: they at least mention the CSXT team in passing (which the article
seems to imply to an unwitting reader to not exist), but not even their name.

If I were king of a news outlet, I'd rather hire actual enthusiasts to write
articles, and editors to touch them up, rather than have this kind of crap.

------
InafuSabi
A __wonderfull __achievement, these students made.

The fact that it has taken the university _years_ to reach the goal combined
with the solid fuel systems, which is less complex (but _not_ simple), shows
the __determination __to have another group of non-pro 's to reach that
coveted altitude.

------
kijin
The article mixes all sorts of units but doesn't say exactly where the Kármán
line is supposed to be in any single unit. The closest it gets is 50 miles
plus 60,000 feet, which is a rather confusing way to say 98.75 kilometers.

The actual Kármán line is at 100 kilometers.

This rocket reached an altitude of 339,800 feet, or 103.57 kilometers. Its
maximum speed of 3,386 mph (assuming "normal" miles, not nautical miles) is
equivalent to 1.513 kilometers per second [fixed]. It's well below orbital
velocity, but good enough for poking into space and coming back down.

~~~
aerophilic
There is quite a bit of debate around where the “Karman Line” should really be
(the boundary to space).

Recently there have been efforts to define it as less stringent than the 100km
limit:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457651...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576518308221)

Potentially bringing it _back_ down to 80km (the original definition was a
range between 70-90km).

~~~
luizfzs
We can use Kerbal Space Program as base and set it to 70km

~~~
CydeWeys
I know you're joking, but, KSP models a planet that's different from Earth in
a number of ways. On Kerbin there is zero atmospheric drag past 70km; it's not
the edge of space, it's the demarcation line at which indefinite stable orbits
are possible. That is very different from Earth.

~~~
fernandopj
KSP is a whole different beast if you use the Real Solar System mod (which you
should, once you learn the basics).

~~~
CydeWeys
One of the differences of that mod is that it changes the 70k value to what it
actually is in the real world, though.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> it changes the 70k value to what it actually is in the real world, though.

This surprised me. What is the real-world altitude at which there is zero
atmospheric drag? I thought the atmosphere was basically just continuous.

------
chasd00
There's a guy in the high power rocketry hobby that is aiming for space this
August at the BALLS event in Nevada. He won't say it, but given what he's done
in the past, and the pictures of what he's building there's no other
reasonable explanation.

A guy last year hit 244k feet ( 2/3 the way to the Karman line) on OTC solid
rocket motors available to NAR or Tripoli L3 certified amateurs. Granted, it
was a very exceptional rocket, but access to space by amateurs is getting
closer every day.

That rocket [https://mach5lowdown.com/2018/11/07/phx4-rocket-launch-
to-20...](https://mach5lowdown.com/2018/11/07/phx4-rocket-launch-to-200000ft/)

BALLS [http://www.tripoli.org/Balls](http://www.tripoli.org/Balls)

------
LeonM
I have no experience in rocket science, but can anyone here explain why it's
so difficult to reach the Kármán line?

What else besides power/weight ratio is required to achieve something like
this?

~~~
mabbo
Rocketry is just plain difficult and expensive.

Consider the "Tyranny of Rockets" problem: if you want to send a rocket up 1
km, you need X fuel. But to get to 2 km, you need way more than 2X fuel-
because you first have to carry all that extra fuel up 1 km, which takes more
energy/fuel, before you can use it to go the _other_ km. And if you want 3 km
up... well, you get the idea. It's exponential in cost.

Then the problem of the fuel itself. It has to be something super-energy-
dense: lots of energy (velocity) for the least mass. The most super energy
dense substances are usually used to make bombs, so basically you're building
a metal tube with explosives inside and hoping that you can direct the
explosion correctly such that your rocket goes up.

And then you have to make sure your payload- in this case some sensors to
prove you actually went up that high- have to be lifted (mass) and not break.
In the case of this team, their previous rocket probably did reach space but
the sensors weren't working so they have no evidence!

If you want to really learn this stuff, play the game "Kerbal Space Program".
It's not accurate in any sense, but it gives you the instincts of why and how
rocketry and orbital mechanics work.

~~~
deepnotderp
That's not at all true, the tsiolkovsky rocket equation relates to delta-v
(change in speed) and mass fraction, NOT altitude.

~~~
chucksmash
Delta-v is not change in speed here:

Delta-v, as used in spacecraft flight dynamics is a measure of the impulse
that is needed to perform a maneuver such as launch from, or landing on a
planet or moon, or in-space orbital maneuver. It is a scalar that has the
units of speed. >>As used in this context, it is not the same as the physical
change in velocity of the vehicle<<.[1]

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v)

~~~
EForEndeavour
To clarify: is the distinction between delta-v and change in re velocity that
thrust could be applied in any direction, including in the braking direction,
so a rocket applying a maneuver of given delta-v could end up with an
increased or decreased (or zero) final speed?

If the above distinction is correct, then _in general_ delta-v is not coupled
to the physical change in the rocket's velocity. But in the case of a
conventional rocket with a fixed thrust vector launching from Earth's surface
(as in OP's comment), isn't it perfectly true that delta-v is equivalent to
change in velocity (barring air resistance)?

~~~
deepnotderp
It's also that you can go "backwards", e.g. slow down to land on another
planet.

------
bunderbunder
Surprised to see the photo of the rocket back on the ground, with the nose
cone still attached by some sort of rope.

It would appear that the biggest difference between this thing and an Estes
rocket is the size?

~~~
MPSimmons
From a simplistic standpoint, the only difference between the Space Shuttle
solid rocket boosters and an Estes rocket was the size.

In reality, a solid rocket motor at this scale is very difficult to
manufacture reliably, and with the thrust profile that will provide the
performance that you need to reach your goals.

That's not to mention the avionics in this rocket, the materials (carbon fiber
laid down by the students), the deployment systems for the nose cone, and the
manufacturing of the nozzle engineered to provide adequate thrust through the
entire range of atmospheric pressures.

~~~
mdorazio
To be fair, though, all of these are solved problems that are easily overcome
with budget and outsourcing. Ex. you can buy quality carbon fiber tubes in
whatever diameter and thickness you want from multiple suppliers, contract out
the nozzle based on existing designs to a CNC milling or titanium SLS printing
company, purchase aerospace-rated avionics packages, etc. The impressive part
here is that the students seem to be doing a good chunk of these things mostly
in-house and with less money than it would normally take.

~~~
lutorm
Sure you can contract out the work, but paying for someone else to make a
rocket you launch doesn't really qualify you to say that _you_ did anything.
It also doesn't teach you anything, so what's the point?

Most of what you work on in college is solved problems, because college is
about learning and not about original research.

------
frugalmail
So that's where that crazy tuition goes....

Also, wonder why not
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine)
?

~~~
mLuby
Is there such thing as a solid fuel aerospike?

I'd think the spike geometry would still give ambient (maximally efficient)
expansion over a range of altitudes but IDK how they'd make that work with
solid propellants.

I'm sure the students didn't because it's never been done before, and you get
an A for succeeding with proven technologies, not failing with unproven ones.

