Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
I guess those working on "Kim's special projects" can get a pass through the North Korean Internet firewall.
Space Rated Electronics
- Thread starter astroadrian99
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
bobkrech
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,352
- Reaction score
- 55
Derek is a propulsion professional. He knows what it takes and what it costs. I think you really need to sit down and discuss with him about the budget required to conduct a campaign to send a rocket into space. You must be realistic and realize that if you can't figure out how to finance a project similar to Ky's GoFast which cost between $500,000 to $1,000,000, then it's a no-go before you start.
I suggest you go to the UP Aerospace website to see the typical minimum vehicle you need to reach space (100+ km). https://www.upaerospace.com/custom-1/UPA PUG Lite R121214.pdf The 10" SpaceLoft XL(R) vehicle is the commercial equivalent of Ky's rocket, and was the vehicle Ky launched on the 10th anniversary of the 2004 event. I believe that CTI manufacturers the motor.
Other vehicle prototypes are the Super Loki and the Super Arcas launcher families. The 4.5" Super Loki booster has a short burn motor and loft a 1.5"-2" dart to 100 km with a very limited payload capability and the 4.5" Super Arcas uses a very long burn motor that is very hard to manufacture and operate due to severe thermal issues.
Bob
astroadrian99
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh ok, sorry we've been attempting to get in contact with the FAA about this for a while without a response however we do in fact someone in our team who can do that. We just called it landing area radius. We just don't know of any limits on it.
astroadrian99
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah I know that, we've actually got a plan on making it much cheaper, he already approved the body and propulsion, it's kind of classified for now because of the fact that it costs to get a patent and we'll get it once approved by the FAA we don't want to have spent all that money for nothing. So anyways, for it to just barely reach space, max weight of electronics must be ~300 g, 60 g are cameras and the rest is for gps, accelerometer and magnetometer (if gps needed without CoCom isn't found) and the small computer that sends this all to us through an antenna.
I think I found your problem...
astroadrian99
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
What! I did know, I had seen that before plus Derek had explained it all too me in the beginning.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,348
- Reaction score
- 5,558
[video=youtube;mP1C5Vd_ukY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP1C5Vd_ukY[/video]
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
How much does a patent cost?
astroadrian99
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
Could be $125 per page so for this project, it could be between $5,000-10,000. Way to much to pay if for some reason the FAA doesn't approve.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
So that's like 40-80 pages? Can you use reduce the pages and plow that savings into your electronics?
Last edited:
astroadrian99
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know if we could, we could try but I wouldn't depend on that for now because of the fact that we will have to list everything in detail plus keeping it in APA format and from all we've done, it would be 65 pages so it is going to be hard to reduce without changing the format but my goal is to get it down to 50 pages. We want to keep it lower because we don't have enough funds, it's just barely enough to buy the rocket itself and a little extra for the electronics, so for now, we don't even have enough money for the patent. If somehow we got many more in the future, like $8,000, then we will have enough money to buy those expensive electronics and the patent, but for now, this is no option. We've so far only gotten funds from family members and we're struggling to get the word out to get more people into pitching in. So yeah.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 930
- Reaction score
- 45
I I have been given the same advice a few times in the past. Don't spend the money to patent something if you can't afford to spend the money to defend the patent in court.
I know several people in different fields who have spent $10k-$25k on a patent only to spend 10 to 20 times that to defend it against competitors in court.
I know several people in different fields who have spent $10k-$25k on a patent only to spend 10 to 20 times that to defend it against competitors in court.
astroadrian99
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok, thanks for the advice.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
No that is not required for a patent nor even desired. A patent doesn't follow the format of a published paper. A patent is a legal document not a technical document.
The patent must show evidence of:
1. The invention is new. (Your research and extensive search that shows this idea was never tried or thought of before).
2. The invention is useful. (Shows that a real problem is solved or otherwise useful)
3. The invention works. ( Proof that the invention works, data and demonstration more desirable than theory).
That's it.
I suspect you haven't talked in any depth with a real patent attorney yet?
Last edited:
Charles_McG
Ciderwright
I don't know that #3 is required. There are patents for faster than light communications systems out there.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,141
- Reaction score
- 3,476
This is an interesting thread.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,348
- Reaction score
- 5,558
Almost all patent challenges are based on #1... with several million patents issued, it's difficult to prove in court that something is "new". And of course, if #2 or #3 aren't true then nobody's going to challenge it.
If you're a multi-billion dollar company you can afford to spend a few million a year to patent stuff, based on the idea that if one of your competitors tries to infringe on your patents then you can take them to court, and the worst thing that will happen is that you'll lose a patent that shouldn't have been granted in the first place. Quite often if it looks like the plaintiff has a case the defendant will settle with some kind of licensing agreement, and the plaintiff will get some money out of it. They got the lawyers on their payroll anyway, so it's no skin off their nose if they're spending time defending patents vs. sitting at their desk.
For little guys like us, the whole patent mechanism has become totally irrelevant... it's a stacked deck against us. Better just to do your thing and not waste any time on it. If you really want to pursue it, there are companies that will take care of the patent thing for you, for a fee and a piece of whatever you may get out of it. Besides, if you come up with something really cool that actually makes money, chances are that the Chinese are going to rip it off and drive you out of business... they could care less about your patents.
If you're a multi-billion dollar company you can afford to spend a few million a year to patent stuff, based on the idea that if one of your competitors tries to infringe on your patents then you can take them to court, and the worst thing that will happen is that you'll lose a patent that shouldn't have been granted in the first place. Quite often if it looks like the plaintiff has a case the defendant will settle with some kind of licensing agreement, and the plaintiff will get some money out of it. They got the lawyers on their payroll anyway, so it's no skin off their nose if they're spending time defending patents vs. sitting at their desk.
For little guys like us, the whole patent mechanism has become totally irrelevant... it's a stacked deck against us. Better just to do your thing and not waste any time on it. If you really want to pursue it, there are companies that will take care of the patent thing for you, for a fee and a piece of whatever you may get out of it. Besides, if you come up with something really cool that actually makes money, chances are that the Chinese are going to rip it off and drive you out of business... they could care less about your patents.
Incongruent
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 1,735
- Reaction score
- 6
Not to put your hopes down or anything, but if your launcher can't reliably put a kilogram into low earth orbit (so that requires getting to space and accelerating nearly 10km/s) for less than $20,000 (or $1,900 if the Falcon 9 Heavy works to expectations (less, actually, since launching piggyback satellites is mostly paid for by the launcher of the main satellite)), there's little chance anyone will intend on stealing your design (for profit). Share your design, not only because the reason above but because also you're even less likely to get your idea stolen if it doesn't work. It's a vicious cycle. If other hobbyists use your method, it's not going to hurt you.
I would surmise that you're doing this not to get to space and do experiments there, not to get to space more economically (cost per kilogram, to LEO) but to build a rocket and get to space yourself. If that's true, you need all the help you can get, which involves sharing your plans, and if it's not true, then whatever you're doing is not the most efficient way to do it.
If you're not convinced, try any think of a sane person who would try and steal your ideas for profit. If the person steals your ideas because they also want to get to space themselves and like your plan, they're not making money from it and so you shouldn't be concerned.
Think of it as a mass manufacturer that does huge quantities of injection molds and then a team creates a system that makes a new mold, it's cheaper than current small production run molds, though it is of lesser quality. The mass manufacturer wouldn't think of stealing (ok they might think of it, but then they wouldn't follow through unless they wanted to be admitted to the loony house) the new molding technique, because they're molds are still higher quality and cheaper because of quantity. Now instead of castings we have amount of weight, instead of mass manufacturing and small production runs we have rocket size, instead of quality we have reliability, and instead of team that created the new method we have you.
Do you see where I'm going?
I would surmise that you're doing this not to get to space and do experiments there, not to get to space more economically (cost per kilogram, to LEO) but to build a rocket and get to space yourself. If that's true, you need all the help you can get, which involves sharing your plans, and if it's not true, then whatever you're doing is not the most efficient way to do it.
If you're not convinced, try any think of a sane person who would try and steal your ideas for profit. If the person steals your ideas because they also want to get to space themselves and like your plan, they're not making money from it and so you shouldn't be concerned.
Think of it as a mass manufacturer that does huge quantities of injection molds and then a team creates a system that makes a new mold, it's cheaper than current small production run molds, though it is of lesser quality. The mass manufacturer wouldn't think of stealing (ok they might think of it, but then they wouldn't follow through unless they wanted to be admitted to the loony house) the new molding technique, because they're molds are still higher quality and cheaper because of quantity. Now instead of castings we have amount of weight, instead of mass manufacturing and small production runs we have rocket size, instead of quality we have reliability, and instead of team that created the new method we have you.
Do you see where I'm going?
Similar threads
