Home arrow Blog
UKSC Blog

Welcome to the UK Space Conference Blog, where we will publish items of interest to the UK space community.

For previous posts, please check the UKSC Blog Archive.

 



School rocket blasts off PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Boyce, on 12-02-2008 11:43
Views 250    

David Boyce a rockets mentor for the UKAYRoC youth rocketry competition reflects on the progress of his team

Wow! The Leicester rocket team have gone from sputnik to space shuttle in a week. The last time I saw the pupils of Lancaster boys school they had no rocket, no parachute and only about two weeks left before the flight qualifying deadline. I returned to the school last week hoping, praying that they would have built something. I arrived to find a large rocket in the final stages of construction. It’s rough around the edges but I think it stands a chance. A rocket engine mount had been built that could hold four D. class engines. A poster tube formed the body of the rocket and the fins were made out of plastic.

Construction of the Igniter system

As promised we launched the prototype that we had made the week before. The prototype had only a single engine and flew for about fifteen seconds. The parachute did not deploy. We looked for the reasons why the parachute did not deploy. It had become snagged on the shock cord. What is that? Well, it is the cord that connects the two parts of your rocket to the parachute. We return to the classroom and modify the four engine rocket accordingly.

 

Everything is ready but time has run out. It has grown dark and in the low visibility it would not be safe to launch the rocket. I find out that following day is a teacher training day and the teacher is willing to allow the rocket team to come in and finish the rocket. I come in also and draw a parallel circuit on the board. This is for the igniter system. To simultaneously ignite four engines requires a large current to be dumped through four independent igniters instantaneously. If you connected all four igniters in a series circuit then the circuit could break before all four igniters have gone off. In a parallel circuit if one of the igniters burns out before another one, the excess current is dumped through the unignited igniters and quickly sets them off. Building a parallel circuit requires lots of wire, some crocodile clips and a soldering iron. The rocket team build it easily and turn their attention on to the case for the batteries. Four engines require about sixteen AA batteries and so require a housing that’ll keep them all connected. However we find it difficult. It seems that sometimes the battery holders do not make a good connection to the batteries. Time is again running out and we improvise a battery stick. Sixteen batteries sellotaped end to end guarantee connection when they are pushed together.

Arming the rocket

We take everything out to the field, set the rocket up and realise that we have forgot some key items. Firstly we need to cut one of the wires of the igniter system and we have nothing to cut it with. Also we break the hoop that connects the rockets to the launch pole and have no sellotape to fix it. I send somebody back to fetch the needed items. When they come back I notice that we have cut the igniter wire too short and the button presser would have to sit a little bit too close to the launching rocket for comfort.

 

The blue sky is clear and empty. The soft January light illuminates the launch site where a large rocket waits on the pad. A nest of wires descends out of its base to a crouching rocket mentor sat about two metres away. A group of enthusiastic rocketeers view from a safe distance, nervous with anticipation. We have several false starts and short circuits. The rocket mentor tests the batteries by shorting them with a piece of wire. Batteries are go! The mentor presses the button.

Launch! Distance between me and rocket foreshortened by perspective

For a second nothing happens. Then in an explosion of noise all four engines ignite. An audible shock wave of smoke blasts the ground. The rocket pulls off the pad slowly. It powers into the sky straight and true and takes a high arch. The engines shut down and the rocket arcs over. It falls to the ground. The parachute doesn’t deploy 100% successfully and the landing is rather hard. It takes us several minutes to pull the rocket out of the hole in the ground. But the eggs onboard survived!

Last update: 12-02-2008 11:48

Published in : Blogs, UKSC Blog
 
Constructing the prototype PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Boyce, on 26-01-2008 13:23
Views 166    

David Boyce a rockets mentor for the UKAYRoC youth rocketry competition reflects on the progress of his team

 

For my second visit to the school I decided that a different approach was required. The last session was all about wowing them with videos of rockets launching and building in them an enthusiasm for the project. This session was going to be different. This session would be the wakeup call. Now was the time to let them know the enormity and difficulty of the thing they were attempting to do. Rather than carrying 101 pieces of rocketry equipment into the school I took with me two poster tubes and some glue. The school provided a junior hacksaw, a small sheet of plastic and three eager rocketeers.

Three weeks away from the qualifying flight deadline this team have so far constructed nothing. In terms of construction this is not a problem since a rocket could be constructed in just a couple of hours. The main problem with having so tight a schedule is that it cuts out most of the trial and error time. You see, making a rocket fly is easy. Making a rocket fly to 750ft. for 45 seconds and have a perfect parachute deployment is quite hard. The most time consuming aspect of the rocket building process is the flight, analysis, alteration and re-flight of the test vehicle. With this in mind I thought it was high time to have at least something constructed so that we can fly something and learn something whilst we are constructing the final rocket.
I think it’s quite important that the competition rocket is made entirely by the students. The greatest thing about this competition is the ownership that the students have over their own rocket. This is their rocket, if it is successful that success is entirely down to the students. As a rocket mentor I can tell them what wouldn’t work and I can show them what would. Ultimately the craftsmanship and the construction of the rocket is entirely down to the students. I could however build a very crude prototype to show them how the various bits fit together.
This is what we did in the session. Using a poster tube I showed how an engine mount could be built. In about an hour we constructed together a reusable rocket. The prototype was built to contain a single rocket engine. The challenge that I set for the students to complete is to look at the prototype and build the engine mount for a rocket that would contain four engines. They have two weeks to complete this.

Last update: 26-01-2008 13:25

Published in : Blogs, UKSC Blog
 
The diary of the rocket mentor PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Boyce, on 10-01-2008 09:59
Views 610    
By David Boyce
 
The UKAYRoC competition is an opportunity for schoolchildren to take part in what has to be the most exciting application of science. The challenge is to build a rocket that will fly to 750ft for 45 seconds and carry two raw hens eggs the whole way without breaking them. 
 
For me this is the first time that I have been a rocket mentor and so I wasn’t sure what to expect. Would it be like the schools rocket workshops that we have here at the University of Leicester or would it be more like our SEDs rockets club? The reality was it was like both of them and yet completely different to either. One of the hardest parts so far was, believe it or not, getting in contact with the right person at the school. Communication difficulties aside, yesterday (the ninth of January) we had our first session.
 
I packed up my car with everything rocket related I could find and dashed down the road to the school. We had arranged the session to be done as an after school club that I would attend but for the students they would also meet up at dinner times to put the work in. Upon approaching the school I caught sight of what could only be described as herds of children tearing through the school gates. An indication that it was both home time and that I was in the right place. As I slowly drove my car through the thronging crowd it reminded me somewhat of a whilderbeast scene from the Lion King.
 
Abandoning my car I set off on foot to find the reception. With military precision I was given a visitor’s badge and an invitation to sit down and wait. At that point it crossed my mind “what if the teacher has forgotten that I was coming?”. My fears were unfounded as a science teacher approached. She escorts me to my car to pick up the abandoned rocketry equipment and we make our way towards a science lab. Loitering outside are two eager students. It was then that I realized that I had met one of them before. “ You were at Space School UK!” I say. In fact my fondest memory of Space School UK involved this particular student’s endless interest. During the observing session this student kept us all awake until dawn asking questions about the universe.
 
We go inside and I begin my presentation. It starts with an introduction to the competition and is followed by what I call “The Link”. What is this link I hear you cry? Well, it’s relating what they are doing in the classroom to what they will be doing in ten years time. I showed them how rocketry links with their aspirations to work on space missions, or to be an astronaut.
 
I tell the teacher in private that model rocketry is not that dangerous when compared to activities like stateboarding but I tell her that I will explain it to the kids like it is the most dangerous hobby on earth. This is so they never relax or become complacent when working with rockets and at the same time it feeds that fourteen year old desire to be doing something dangerous.
 
The next part of the session I dedicate to some cool hands on experimentation. I get them building a small rockets kit and demonstrates to them the pyrotechnics. Held aloft by a clamp stand assembly an igniter is triggered to demonstrate what it does. Next a rocket engine is clamped and the assembly taken outside for test firing. I establish good button  pressing practice and get them to fire the engine. Suddenly everybody is thrilled and can’t wait to start building rockets. The small rocket kit is now complete and we take that outside to launch. By this point it has gone dark and as our rocket flies away into the night I comment “we’ll never see that again!”.
 
I lay down the challenge in front of them, what they have to build and on what time scale. The clock is ticking and we do not have long until qualifying flights need to be made. The kids respond to that challenge and suddenly have a look of steely determination on their faces. They no longer wants to take part in the competition, they want to win it!                                       

Last update: 10-01-2008 09:59

Published in : Blogs, UKSC Blog
 
British proposal for Space Station modules PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Boyce, on 04-01-2008 22:10
Views 685    

Sent to us by Clive Simpson

UK engineers and scientists - with the support of the British Interplanetary Society - are urging the UK government to fire the public's imagination and catch the vision for future space exploration by joining the International Space Station (ISS) programme.

A new contribution to the debate about how the UK should be involved in future space exploration is featured exclusively in the latest edition of Spaceflight magazine, the British Interplanetary Society’s monthly space publication. 


Article author, Mark Hempsell, of Bristol University’s aerospace engineering department says: “Our proposal is for UK industry to design, build and launch a habitation module to enhance the everyday living facilities for astronauts.

“This proposal shows what Britain could still achieve at a relatively modest cost.”

As well as inspiring both the public and a new generation of young people, Hempsell claims such a project would significantly raise the UK's profile in the space-faring community around the world.

“It would allow UK scientists to use the Space Station for experiments, pave the way for British astronauts, and bring significant development and investment to the country's industry,” he said.

Hempsell argues that current options under consideration are very limited and would not allow the development of the full potential of the UK science or engineering communities.

“Such low-scale programmes are not a good basis for later participation in any international human lunar and Martian programmes because they have no engineering contribution,” he stated.

The British Habitation Extension Module (HEM) proposal would provide extra crew support facilities that would enable more effective crew use of the existing science laboratories.

“The design study illustrates that the many requirements for a late, but full, entry into the ISS programme can be met by a single system and is still a possible option for Britain,” explained Hempsell.

Two HEM modules would extend Node 3 and add around 100 m3 to the Space Station’s living areas.

The total cost of developing building and launching - on a Russian Souyuz/Fregat rocket - the two HEMs would be £530 million, spread over five or six years to 2015.

“It does now seem to have dawned on decision makers that the earlier exclusion of the UK from manned spaceflight in general and the ISS in particular was not in the national interest – at least from the science and motivational aspects,” says Hempsell.

“Eventually it may also dawn on them that the damage to the aerospace industrial base is also severely detrimental. The HEM study shows it is still possible to rectify this damage as well.”


Notes

The London-based British Interplanetary Society has an international membership of several thousand and was formed in 1933 to promote the exploration and utilisation of space.

In the 1930s, the BIS came up with plans for a manned lunar spacecraft, three decades before Apollo. In the late 1970s, it prepared a detailed design for a robot star-probe, Project Daedalus, to explore the system of Barnard's Star.

It publishes the monthly magazine Spaceflight and a technical periodical Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

See also the Society’s ‘British human spaceflight campaign’ http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/sitesia.aspx/page/1191/l/en-gb

Last update: 04-01-2008 22:10

Published in : Blogs, UKSC Blog
 
Pluto, the Planet that was PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Boyce, on 03-01-2008 15:50
Views 809    

By Laurel Kornfeld

Laurel is a writer and astronomy enthusiast that works out of New Jersey, USA. She has become well known in the blogosphere for championing the fight to save Pluto's planet status

The decision by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) last summer to demote Pluto to the status of dwarf planet was in part due to anti-American political sentiment around the world and is likely not the last word on the subject because of the confusing definition of the word “planet” the organization adopted, Brother Guy Consolmagno, an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, told about 300 people at a lecture sponsored by the Rutgers Geology Museum as part of its annual Open House. Although Consolmagno is American by birth, he lives in a Vatican apartment one floor above the pope and therefore was selected by the IAU as a European representative in the early 1990s, when the group sought to broaden the membership of its committees to include non-space faring nations.

 

Consolmagno provided a brief history of the IAU, which was founded in 1919 after World War I to establish international agreement on astronomical issues. At that time, every nation had its own observatory, resulting in newly discovered celestial objects being given different names in each nation and many nations having their own prime meridians. At that time, the Vatican established its own observatory, partly to strengthen its efforts at being recognized as an independent nation and partly “to apologize for Galileo,” Consolmagno said. He began his presentation by outlining three questions. What objects are currently being found beyond the orbit of Neptune, and are they planets; what is a planet and who decides this; and why do the first two questions matter at all.

Understanding the nature of an object helps determine what questions to ask and what tools to use when encountering that object, Consolmagno explained. “The tools to study an asteroid are different from those to study a planet.”Scientists’ motivations in searching for new discoveries are “a mix of noble and crass,” he said. Finding a new object puts discoverers’ names into textbooks and can play a major role in their obtaining funding and tenure. For this reason, there is less motivation to find objects that are considered minor and will not gain scientists a place in posterity. Initially, the IAU was interested only in stars, not planets, Consolmagno said. When Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto in 1930, the director of the Lowell Observatory, where he made the discovery, announced the object’s name. In contrast, today the IAU not only names newly discovered comets, asteroids, and planets; it also has separate committees that name specific types of objects. The IAU is run by an executive committee, which then appoints divisions which are further subdivided into commissions and working groups. For example, Division 3 deals with Planetary System Sciences and has two commissions under it, Commission 15 for dealing with Minor Bodies (comets and asteroids) and Commission 16 for dealing with Planets and Moons.

Guy Consolmagno

Consolmagno served as president of Commission 16 from 2003-2006. In the early 1990s, through the use of better detectors on telescopes, scientists began discovering objects beyond the orbit of Neptune in a region known as the Kuiper Belt, Consolmagno noted. The first Kuiper Belt Object, or KBO, was discovered fifteen years ago, and as many as 1100 have now been identified, he said. These discoveries created a dilemma for the IAU because the organization could not determine which categories they belong to and therefore had no way to decide who would name them, Consolmagno said. As more KBOs were discovered, scientists recognized that Pluto is very similar to the largest of them in that it has an odd orbit tilted 17 degrees from the plane of the other eight planets, is roughly the same distance from the sun, and is in a 3 to 2 orbital resonance with Neptune, meaning it and the other KBOs complete two revolutions around the sun for every three revolutions completed by Neptune.

 

These similarities between Pluto and the new KBOs led scientists to begin questioning whether Pluto is a planet or just another KBO, Consolmagno said. The situation came to a head when a KBO slightly larger than Pluto, originally known as 2003 UB313 and eventually named Eris, was discovered by Michael Brown at Caltech in 2005. Eris reflects light in the same way Pluto does, and it and other large KBOs have similar orbits and are tilted in odd ways, Consomagno said. Eris is tilted 45 degrees from the plane of the first eight planets. Pluto has a diameter of 1,430 miles while Eris has a diameter of 1,500 miles. “If Pluto is a planet, all these should be too,” Consolmagno said, describing the debate among scientists. Some also proposed that the moons of planets be considered planets themselves.

To address these issues, the IAU in 2005 established a 19-person Planet Definition Committee of which Consolmagno was a member. However, its members could not reach any consensus on the matter. A second committee that included non-scientists such as writer Dava Sobel came up with a definition stating a planet must be in orbit around a star, must not be a star itself, and must be large enough that its gravity pulls it into a round shape, Consolmagno reported. That definition expanded the solar system to 12 planets, including Ceres, the largest asteroid between Mars and Jupiter, Eris, and Pluto’s moon Charon, which was added because the barycenter, or orbital point around which Pluto and Charon revolve, is located between the two objects, essentially making it a binary or double planet. That definition was presented to the IAU at its General Assembly last August.

 

The definition raised objections from astronomers known as dynamicists, who differ from planetary scientists in that they study the dynamics surrounding celestial objects as opposed to the composition of the objects themselves, Consolmagno said. According to dynamicists, planets are objects that control what happens outside their regions, such as perturbing the orbits of other planets, something Pluto does not do. Political considerations entered the equation during the debate because most planetary scientists are American while most dynamicists are European, Consolmagno explained. “The US is not popular in most parts of the world.” The compromise created during the General Assembly established three classes of planets: classical planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system objects. However, a resolution affirming that both classical planets and dwarf planets are subcategories of the larger classification “planet” was voted down. As a result, “Pluto is a dwarf planet but not a planet,” Consolmagno said.

He admitted that the planet definition adopted by the IAU, which requires a planet to clear its orbit of all other objects, is “sloppy language” that needs to be refined. Consolmagno currently serves on a committee whose goal is accomplishing this. Consolmagno also acknowledged that the demotion of Pluto to dwarf planet led to outrage and horror as well as questions over how to explain the situation to children. Ultimately, it will be the public who decide whether the new definition sticks, he said. “Whether this will fly in popular speech is up to the public.” The change in Pluto’s classification also sparked a backlash among planetary scientists, many of whom were not present at the General Assembly and therefore could not vote. Dr. Ken Kremer, a NASA JPL Solar System Ambassador, said he believes the decision was not representative because fewer than five percent of IAU members took part in the voting. “It was basically a rush to judgment.” Many astronomers maintain that Pluto is a planet, the first representative of a new class of planets known as Ice Dwarfs, Kremer said. He also agreed that the new planet definition is sloppy, noting it technically excludes four of the classical planets because they too “do not clear their orbital paths." The tools for studying dwarf planets are those used to study standard planets as opposed to those used for asteroids, which have far less density, Consolmagno said. Studying planets requires the tools of geology because planets have activity on their surfaces. “The compositional difference between dwarf planets and classical planets is not that much,” Consolmagno said. “Dwarf planets have a lot of ice, but so do Uranus and Neptune. The majority of their mass and size is ice.”

 

As for what to tell children, Consolmagno evoked the story, “The Ugly Duckling.” “The way of presenting it to kids is that as a planet, Pluto is an ugly duckling, but it is its own thing—a perfect example of a beautiful dwarf planet.”

Last update: 12-01-2008 13:37

Published in : Blogs, UKSC Blog
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 9 of 11

Main Menu
Home
Contact Us
Calendar
How to find us
FAQs
Programme
Forum
Links
News
Blog
Podcasts
Search
News Feeds
Latest Updates
Login Form





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
Podcast
Subscribe to the UKSC Podcast Podcast
Full Feed