This is the first thing I have seen that really shows how powerful 3D printing is, the internal supports in the wings alone do this!
The Low Orbit Helium Assisted Navigator (LOHAN) team is gearing up to get our magnificent Vulture 2 spaceplane airborne, and while we fiddle with servos and autopilots, we thought you might enjoy a few intimate snaps of the world's first 3D-printed, rocket-powered aircraft. Before we get down to to it, it's hats off once again …
About 10 years ago the company I worked for was offered a trial of an incredibly expensive 3d printing machine and my first question was "do you reckon you could print a nut and bolt that were screwed together, take it out the machine and unscrew it?". The general consensus was "no, not really". But seeing the detail you've got there, I'm starting to think maybe we're nearly there ...
I'm not trying to cast aspersions (or, indeed, nasturtiums) on the SPB staff, but is that really the case?
It just surprises me that, as 3D printing has been around for a few years now, some enterprising amateur rocketeer or RC plane enthusiast hasn't already done this?
As I recall, those Fireflashes were always exploding, falling into the sea, being shot down, and generally keeping International Rescue busier than a one-armed paper-hanger. So here's hoping El Reg have got Thunderbird 5 on speed-dial, just in case...
Have they got a new Traffic Control module built into the ISS now? Given that there's been quite a lot of congestion up there recently. What with the Cygnus test-capsule, a Soyuz popping in and The Register sending their playmonaut to join the staff. Although as there was nearly a space-drowning just outside the ISS, The Special Projects Bureau ought to be very careful, as the only space agency we know of to have actually drowned one of their 'nauts.
Was it intended to be painted when designed? I ask because I have seen paint significantly increase the weight of model aircraft. Is the all-up-weight range known for the Vulture 2?
From the description "like a cuttle fish", it sounds like you're either going to have to spend quiet some time sanding before painting, or you're going to use a lot of paint to get a smooth finish.
That explains all the delays.
Golagafrincham captain: Yes, and, and, and the wheel. What about this wheel thingy? Sounds a terribly interesting project to me.
Golagafrincham marketing exec: Er, yeah, well we’re having a little, er, difficulty here…
Ford Prefect: Difficulty?! It’s the single simplest machine in the entire universe!
Golagafrincham marketing exec: Well alright mister wise guy, if you’re so clever you tell us what colour it should be!
Good show indeed old chaps!
Looking very good. The only part I have some doubts about is the contruction of the bayonet closure for the nose section. Those sharp inside corners look perfect for the start of stress fractures.
The surface finish could do with some work as well. I find it to be a bit disappointing, I had expected a slightly smoother finish.
It's possible that painting the plane might actually increase drag. When I looked at the photos, it reminded me of studies I've read about into reducing drag by using non-smooth surfaces. Think golf balls, but with much smaller undulations in the material.
Sadly, I can't remember where I read this, probably a report in New Scientist or similar. But a quick google for "aerodynamics non smooth surface" shows that several people seem to be working on this topic.
It would be interesting if the non-smoothness of the aircraft skin (which is presumably a byproduct of the 3d printing) turned out to be actually beneficial in terms of drag - and you'd save the weight of the paint!
The brightest, most lurid, yellow you can get please! I guess we should probably call it Windows Phone Yellow...
Although, as a couple of people have noted above, a nice blue to match the Fireflash from Thunderbirds would be fun. But I guess that's not exactly going to help with visibility in the sky. But we could stick to the 50s/60s futuristic theme by going for a nice shiny silver paint job. The 50s jet fighter look would be further enhanced by the addition of cannon, for dealing with rival space-plane-ballocket ventures (especially the ones using hydrogen) - or even for bursting your own balloon prettily. But perhaps that's still a bit too advanced for 3d printing...
IIRC non-smooth surfaces on air bound surfaces do work due to the way they change the effective air density around them through the micro-vortices created. Something like that anyway :) A linked effect can be had from blowing air out the front of a air-bound object.
It was only a few years ago that sharks were found to employ a similar effect in water explaining in part their comparatively rough skin and just how fast and efficiently they can move in water. An artificial surface similar to it was used on some yacht or other in the Americas Cup, which led to all kind of secrecy and marketing / publicity shenanigans going on.
"When I looked at the photos, it reminded me of studies I've read about into reducing drag by using non-smooth surfaces. Think golf balls, but with much smaller undulations in the material."
Mythbusters tested this by covering a car with (big) golf ball dimples. They determined that the dimples did indeed decrease drag - confirmed.
Would be worth investigating whether any sanding/painting is required.
Lester, don't engage the trolls. They don't care about your opinion and you only look silly when you join them under the bridge.
I don't think the roughness of the aeroshell will be a problem - back when I flew model rockets as a kid, they were made of cardboard, and the flew just as well painted as unpainted. This looks a little rougher than cardboard, but as others have said, that may actually be a positive, based on some recent research in fluid dynamics.
The thing that really gets me about the design is that you've created something that would be extremely difficult, if even possible, to duplicate via normal manufacturing. All of those braces in the plastic that so beaufifully spiral around the interior would be maddening to make with injection molding. That's pretty dang cool, but it probably means that we won't see DIY Vulture2 models in the hobby shop, which is a shame.
I'm sure I'm not the only one excited to hear about the onboard telemetry this thing will have. I assume the intent is to have it navigate back to the launch point - or will you be able to set a destination in flight? At the height of launch, if the autopilot works, you should be able to cover a lot of ground from the launch point. I'm looking forward to following Dave's realtime tracker again.
You're right, but send me the GPS co-ords of the bridge and we'll engage that instead.
A lot of people have mentioned the rough surface. Got to have paint though anyway - visibility issues.
It's absolutely impossible to do the thing other than by 3D printing. Check the CAD drawings of the wings and their internal structure. Amazing.
The plan is to pre-programme the landing point. We can calculate the balloon flight path and will be able to ensure there's enough glide slope for the Vulture to land where required.
This isn't funny, Lester. Do you not understand what you are doing? This is no longer a paper airplane built from straws. This is a missile with military grade components. You have already shown the world how to build a radio operated computer controlled detonator. What do you think a rocket motor is? It's a stick of explosive. You've told people where to get these products, and shown your original research on how to get these detonators to work in a vacuum. The same device that can ignite a rocket motor in a vacuum could ignite in an oxygen-free environment like for example, the bottom of a gasoline fuel tank on a bus full of people.
Now you're getting ready to launch the damn thing. You've built a rail-launch system, just like the Nazis used to launch the V-1 buzz bomb. You've built a GPS guidance system that can guide a glider to specific coordinates, which could be an empty field in Spain, or 10 Downing Street. It has significant payload capacity, since it doesn't have to fly level, it can plummet to earth and merely use its fins to steer, like a GBU-27. There is almost no limit to payload, you can just add more helium balloons to compensate for the extra weight of a few kilos more RDX or C4. You almost have a TV guidance system like the AGM-65 Maverick missile, certainly your PiCam system can transmit enough live telemetry to allow you to watch through the nose cone and steer your missile to the target. Or maybe you didn't think of that. Like you haven't thought ANY of this through. If a bunch of idiots like you guys can build a military grade missile, just think of what the technology you have built and shown to the world, could do in the hands of the wrong people.
Do the world a favor, Lester. Scrap the missile. Burn it. Remove the detonator plans from El Reg's site. Try to erase all the evidence you were ever connected to such a stupid idea. Because when someone drops one of these things on London, MI5 is going to come looking for YOU.
Do you wear a tinfoil hat?
Even if The Reg decided that actually this was a bad idea and that to save themselves from government spooks they better delete this... i'm relatively sure that they can't delete Google Cache or entries on the WayBackMachine (to name but two) and therefore would be screwed anyway. With that in mind, if you're gonna go down, better to to do it actually having achieved their lofty goal!
I for one cannot wait for the launch of this and will be watching it live on the stream. As for you... i'd suggest that as you're so concerned you best not come back to The Reg and delete your account... just in case... you never know...
...This isn't funny, Lester...
Oh yes it is. Free tip - when trolling someone, you're supposed to make them upset, not make them laugh.
A point-by point refutation of your post would have to list practically every word with WRONG attached, but since you're "merely" trolling, it's certainly not worth the effort. Go away.
Perhaps you should consider whether Parliament was trolling when it enacted The Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1966, Category 9 - Aircraft, Space Vehicles, Propulsion Systems, and Related Equipment. I'm not certain what regulations would apply at the launch site in Spain, but I have contacted the Tripoli Rocketry Association (active in Spain) and asked them to evaluate the flight systems and launch parameters.
Couple of things. This project is not bound by UK law, and even if it were, the cited law has no relation to the project.
Our dealings are with the Spanish authorities, who are better qualified than you to consider the matter. Please feel free to contact AESA expressing your concerns.
The Tripoli Rocketry Association is indeed active in Spain, and we have had contact with the local branch. With respect, I do not see that they have dominion over this mission.
Finally, you have become tiresome, so this is your last post on the matter.
I think what posters above are looking for is the term 'laminar flow'. Not my field of expertise, but it can certainly make a huge difference to the 'slipperiness' of an object moving through a medium (liquid or gas).
However, from what I recall, it is a bit if a black art when it comes to getting it right. So, whether the degree of roughness of LOHAN's surface will increase or decrease the drag experienced at a given air density and velocity would require the expertise of someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Either way I doubt it would make a significant difference, unless the team's objective to to extract every possible bit of performance out of LOHAN. Still, it may be a conversation worth having as a genuinely shiny paint job will certainly add weight.
It turns out that what you really need is a tiny layer of turbulent flow, that more-or-less acts as a layer of ball bearings for the laminar flow layer above, to lower drag. Getting the layer thick enough to work, but thin enough not to cause severe turbulence which may lead to much worse resistance is indeed not trivial at all, and the correct roughness also depends on speed. You would probably need extensive (and expensive) wind-tunnel testing to get it right.
I know its a bit late to mention this but don't those 3D printers take different colour plastic stock? you could print the lower sections in black/red and the uppers in white, and have no need to paint it, maybe next time.
As far as painting goes though I'd be happy with SR-71 Matt black or gloss red.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019