Danes in spaaaaaaaaaaccceeee!!!
 

The Copenhagen Suborbitals project have reached a milestone!

Successful final test of the engine in a downscaled version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdhiSxrwkSs

Next stop vertical launch in the autum 2009.....reaching 45000 feet!

Human flight in 3-4 years!

There's an astronaut who is of Finnish descent being sent up to space, Timothy Kopra is his name. Yea I know, not a 'full Finn' but getting there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_L._Kopra

I have a question for the space buffs out there, and sadly it does not involve the long-awaited ascension of Denmark to the rank of space-vikings, but it is somewhat topical, and has been bugging me for a long time.

Why do we not simply use an aerodynamic aircraft with jet and rocket engines to attain orbit? It would have to be more efficient than just using rockets all the way, right? I thought that was the premise that Spaceship One was based upon. If they can get that thing into low orbit for less than a million dollars, why does everyone continue to insist upon using rockets alone?

Just curious... have you made a bbq with that thing? :D

I think part of the reason is that you have to carry different fuels and different drives, making the whole thing entirely too complicated and heavy

I do not understand McBeck. What is the final use of this motor?

I agree, and think the major part is that the thrust required to reach orbital speed requires the jettisonable multi-stage rocket approach just to hold the fuel and engines.

Spaceship one has never attained orbit.
It is dropped from an airplane at high altitude and then goes on a sub orbital trajectory. You know the same kind of trajectory that was used in nasa'a first sub orbital flight, Alan Shepard on friendship 7 in 1961.

As to why using rockets, well if you want to put something into orbit (be it leo or high earth orbit or geostationary orbit) you're going to need some serious speed. Going out very quickly of the atmosphere and then gaining horizontal speed so as to put you in continuos free fall around the earth.
You need rockets, the bigger and heavier the payload the bigger and powerfull the rockets have to be. And even then, as in the case of the Shuttle you still need powerful engines on the spacecraft itself.

To send a human into space in a homebuild spacecraft:
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/spacecraft.php
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/campaign.php

Lots more at:
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/index.php
Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=61162256231

OMG :o The word " homebuild " reminds me of my 2x4 and plywood spaceflight days.:DL

Hmm, the Danes. They have this tendency to surprise you with their zany antics. :)

Very admirable I wish them all the luck !

But I have to point out that "hi-power amateur rocket enthusiasts" have already reached this bench mark. Albeit on a smaller scale. There now approaching 100km :cool:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/Rocketry/index.html

Well the flight in the autum is not the goal. Its one of 2 small scale tests.
Once those are completed, they will start of the 3 unmanned full scale test where they we go above the 100km line (which marks the entry into space).
Pending their success Peter will do the manned flight.
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/campaign.php

I know it sounds crazy and like something that cant possible be done, but I have learned one thing knowing Peter for app 4 years now....when he sets his mind to it - he will complete it.
A very good example is his 50 feet submarine....

Im scheduled to be at the launch in the autum - cant wait!!

Because going straight up is the fastest way out of the atmosphere, if you go in an aircraft style ascent you have to fight the air almost the entire way, by going straight up you get out of the air in as little time and fuel possible allowing you to use your fuel for attaining orbit in a frictionless environment.