Cheapest way to lauch 0,8kg out to space?

hello

id own small computer and its ready to send me a signal via internet(satellite connection)
dimensions :120x70x40mm
weight: 788 grams (including cpu, modem, and batterys)
now i want to send it out of atmosphere

id suppose it can be done with a rocket..
but i just know the physics from primay school :p
any help would be apreciated

N-Prize by any chance?

The device required is going to be determined by what end result you want. If you want it to get into orbit you'll need something slightly more sophisticated than if you simply want it to get into space.

ill simply want to reach atmosphere and look how computer dies
the goal is to make it cheap...accesible for a simple worker like me

ill simply want to reach atmosphere and look how computer dies
the goal is to make it cheap...accesible for a simple worker like me

Look how the computer dies? You're probably going to want to clarify that.

We are in the atmosphere right now, do you wish to reach the upper atmosphere or actually get into what is technically considered 'space'?

Look how the computer dies? You're probably going to want to clarify that.
well, i suppose the computer its not gonna survive to space conditions.
so, basicaly..yes i want to look, how she dies while reach the space.

The computer is most likely to 'die' due to shock or vibration on the way up more than anything else.

If designed well enough it will survive for as long as required. Surviving landing is another issue.

I recommend you look up model rockets and see if you could work with them. For simply sending something up it would seem the best option. You'd have to check the range though.

In theory you simply need to accelerate your 0.8kg mass to 11.2km/s (escape velocity). This means you would need to impart:

1/2 * 0.8 * (11,200)^2 = 50MJ = 14kWh

worth of kinetic energy to your object. If you use electricity, and your rate is $0.10/kWh the cost would be$1.40. If you used gasoline @ $3.00/Gallon, you would need about 0.384 gallons or$1.15.

But don't get too excited! These calculations ignore the friction of the air against your object. Furthermore, these calculations assume that you can convert a form of potential energy with 100% efficiency to kinetic energy, achieving this would earn you a Nobel Prize.

These two "little caveats" are what separate us mere mortals from rocket scientist.

The "real answer" can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics

and the answer is $5000/kg to$40,000/kg.

Fish

Gold Member
What, so you really want to do something like go out in your back yard and fire off a rocket to send this computer into space? Why? There is no way you will do that cheaply.

DaveC426913
Gold Member
What, so you really want to do something like go out in your back yard and fire off a rocket to send this computer into space? Why? There is no way you will do that cheaply.
It is an opportunity to learn, even if it's learnnig how deep a gravity well we are in.

russ_watters
Mentor
But don't get too excited! These calculations ignore the friction of the air against your object. Furthermore, these calculations assume that you can convert a form of potential energy with 100% efficiency to kinetic energy, achieving this would earn you a Nobel Prize.

These two "little caveats" are what separate us mere mortals from rocket scientist.
More importantly, they ignore the fact that you have to carry the fuel with you, so you're not just carrying fuel to lift the payload, you're carrying fuel to lift the fuel to carry the payload. That's why lifting a 50,000 lb payload requires a million pounds of fuel!

russ_watters
Mentor
It is an opportunity to learn, even if it's learnnig how deep a gravity well we are in.
Agreed, though what the OP suggest simply can't be done in a single-step. From the level of knowlege displayed so far, I think the appropriate path is to start with some simple model rockets and go from there: http://www.estesrockets.com/

Nothing wrong with starting small and there is a lot to be learned from it.

Though as an alternative, a weather balloon will get you close to space for a budget within reason for most people.

its ok. im here to learn some things
somebody ask ¿why? i say...why not?

i dont think the computer is gonna die due to shock or vibration on the way
theres movile phones that support lot of kicks

id think the best option is to make a rocket able to carry that weight out to space
id say make, not to buy. i dont think you can find a rocket like that in a shop

i can put everything on a cilinder, or whatever, his dimmensions are not very important
in fact, the computer is like a visa card, batterys/modem are what realy annoys

its not gonna be easy....but i think its not impossible, i dont want just to dream

I'd say a balloon is probably your best choice, depending on how far up you want to go. You can relatively easily get to 100k ft. Little more work and effort you could get further up. But, I think this is prob the most viable option in your situation.

Mech_Engineer
Gold Member
I'd say the best estimate would be around $15,000-20,000/kg, just because it would be pretty expensive to build a rocket capable of reaching orbit... That being said, launching a computer into space to "see if it dies" is a pretty ridiculous reason. What modes of failure are you interested in that haven't already been tested by NASA for example? I would say thermal is probably your biggest risk, and easily tested in a vacuum chamber with a heat lamp. Mech_Engineer Science Advisor Gold Member I'd say a balloon is probably your best choice, depending on how far up you want to go. You can relatively easily get to 100k ft. Little more work and effort you could get further up. But, I think this is prob the most viable option in your situation. Yup, weather balloons are cheap, easy to operate, and would get you up to maybe 150,000 ft if you keep the payload very light... well, i suppose the computer its not gonna survive to space conditions. so, basicaly..yes i want to look, how she dies while reach the space. What a total waste of time. It'll either break because it's too cold, or it's too hot. You can do both sat on the ground. Thats assuming it survives any 'launch'. Out of interest, are you doing this to waste time or to test a computer for sending back telementry or something? DaveC426913 Gold Member What a total waste of time. Somebody pee on your Cheerios? How about we try to keep our criticism constructive. boneh3ad Science Advisor Gold Member Somebody pee on your Cheerios? How about we try to keep our criticism constructive. To be fair, the most optimistic you can be here is to say that this endeavor is one that will confirm results that have already been attained by NASA, ESA, ROSCOSMOS, JAXA, ISRO and even the Iranians and North Koreans. Still, it could be educational I suppose, but still a colossal waste of money. You can try and say be constructive, and I think I can honestly say that I think that convincing this guy that this is a bad idea is the most constructive thing to do rather than watch him drop$100,000 on something that isn't actually going to lead anywhere. If you want to do that, then buy a Lamborghini.

How about we try to keep our criticism constructive.

It's not criticism, it's a statement of fact. When testing, if you don't gain anything, it is a waste of time and resources. That is pretty much rule 1 of testing (especially expensive ones). He can recreate conditions to 'see how it would break' within a controlled environment, much cheaper and far more effectively as you can acutally measure things.

So the only reason for acutally sending something into space is to acutally test function in situ. Interesting that this is stated right below that, yet you didn't quote it.

me said:
Out of interest, are you doing this to waste time or to test a computer for sending back telementry or something?

Can you really imagine if he sent something up to space (or at least put it on a homemade rocket at some collossal cost), it came back a smashed charred mess that hits the ground over a 2 sq.mile area. What have you gained? Well, you now know that certainly something broke. Beyond that... not a lot.

EDIT: I hate cheerios.

Last edited:
DaveC426913
Gold Member
It's not criticism it's a statement of fact.
There are plenty of dictionaries that will disabuse you of this notion of a "fact".

It's a statment of opinion. And an opinion you are not in a position to judge for the OP, knowing nothing else about the circumstances of his request.

This is not to say you're not probably right, but there's no need to be abusive about it. This is a learning experience; that's never a waste of time.

There are plenty of ways to bring the OP around to his own conclusion that's it's not feasible that will foster his desire to learn rather than convince him he's a fool.

Gold Member
This is a learning experience; that's never a waste of time.

Waste of time? No. Colossal waste of money? Yes.

That doesn't even address the legal hurdles that would have to be jumped in order to get clearance to launch something into air traffic lanes, let alone clear past those and into space.

What if he wants to develop skills at basic rocket building?

By building it, sending it up, monitoring the feedback until the device is destroyed, he learns something.

Not all rockets are designed to come back down to earth. Heck, one of the N-Prizes is a non-reusable satellite launch. This could be considered a step towards it.

However, given what the OP has said and what its purpose is (well there isn't one), I would certainly agree it's a waste of time and money.

There are plenty of dictionaries that will disabuse you of this notion of a "fact".

It's a statment of opinion.

David, David, David. My opinion is fact.

If you prefer:
If something identical can be achieved cheaper, the more expensive option is obviously a waste of money. As time = money.
RAWR! Checkmate baby.

DaveC426913
Gold Member
If you prefer:
If something identical can be achieved cheaper, the more expensive option is obviously a waste of money. As time = money.
RAWR! Checkmate baby.
In a single sentence you've used 6 subjective and preconceived terms:
something, identical, expensive, obvious, waste, time= money

You haven't the faintest idea what the OP is trying to achieve. Perhaps it's for a book report. Perhaps the lesson being taught is to move forward with a project to see what kinds of obstacles and challenges one might overcome.

It doesn't matter. Telling someone that something they want to do is a waste of time is condescending and destructive. Why don't you just tell him not to bother being inquisitive, since he can just learn what's not possible from a book?

Why don't you just tell him not to bother being inquisitive, since he can just learn what's not possible from a book?

Good idea. OP Don't bother with this silly 'experiment'.

EDIT: I've been posting in GD too much, forgot this was in the 'real' forums. So I suppose I'll stop being deliberately facetious.

However, I stand by my opinion that this is a waste of time, money and effort (if a real endeavour). Also I'm not remotely sorry for the way I talk and/or phrase things. If you don't like it, lump it.