Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Build Your Own Cruise Missile

Posted by michael on Fri May 02, 2003 09:35 PM
from the super-scud dept.
WegianWarrior writes "Bruce Simpson, the man behind one of the more interesting site about pulsejets on the web, has launched a project to build a US$5000 DIY cruisemissile - just to prove that it can be done, since some said his earlier article about it was off the peg. Bruce has also designed and placed on his site a non-weld pulsejet you can build with simple tools, a 2D airflow modeling rig and a new valve/injector design for conventional pulsejets (according to the first page on his site, this new design is placed in the public domain)." We linked to his pulsejet pages about two years ago.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by SugoiMonkey (648879) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:38PM (#5866865) Homepage Journal
    And I thought sites with pipe bomb recipes were revolutionary! Man, will Mr. Smith be suprised when he opens his mail box this time.

    The Monkey Pages [lazyslacker.com]: Not just another personal site...okay, so I lie.

      • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

        by qazxsw (207003) on Friday May 02 2003, @11:42PM (#5867368)
        Unfortunately they've been dumbing down the high school chemistry books to make sure students can't figure out how to from those books. They've ruined chemistry classes in the pathetic attempt to prevent students from learning "bad things".
        • Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)

          by trotski (592530) on Saturday May 03 2003, @01:45AM (#5867741)
          Science in a big waste of time anyway,

          people should be studying for their MBA's and try hard to get football scholarships instead of wasteing they're time trying to learn about the world.

          Szeeesh!
          • Yer right (Score:5, Funny)

            by A nonymous Coward (7548) * on Saturday May 03 2003, @02:29AM (#5867819)
            (1)people should be studying for their MBA(2)'s and try hard to get football scholarships instead of wast(3)eing the(4)y're time trying to learn about the world.

            No kidding.
  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02 2003, @09:39PM (#5866870)
    An anti-spam solution that's bound to work....
  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    I bet I could get some nerds to build one of these and send a hamster into space.

    As the apprentice of Prof. Chaos said, "SIMPSONS DID IT!!!!"
        • It's a football field either way, half as long as a VW Beetle, weighs as much as 4 cowboyneals, and gets to its target quicker than a win2k server box can be slashdotted :P
  • HAHAHA!!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by trotski (592530) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:41PM (#5866878)
    Now I'll show my loser neighbour down the street who's boss! One tomahawk coming up!
  • Seriously,

    Intel Inside

    AMD

    Designed for Windows 95

    Though, personally I like a peace sign.
  • by Lord Fren (189373) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:43PM (#5866891) Journal
    Where do you put the warhead? Some of my Korean friends were asking...
  • by phr2 (545169) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:44PM (#5866894)
    I'm told you can buy Chinese Silkworm cruise missiles for $25K or so at your friendly arms bazaar. The Silkworm is basically a Mig-17 airframe with the pilot replaced by a guidance system. Man, this stuff is scary.
  • by Blaine Hilton (626259) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:44PM (#5866897) Homepage
    Well at least we know what happened when he stop publishing his daily newsletter.

    How do you want to calculate [webcalc.net] today?

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MacDork (560499) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:49PM (#5866916) Journal
    Bill Gates: "Hmmm... 50,000,000,000/5,000 = 10,000,000 cruise missles... Imagine a beowolf cluster of these you hippies!"
  • man.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by ewhenn (647989) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:50PM (#5866919)
    At a million dollars a pop, the US govt. sure gets ripped off on theirs.
      • What? That's mostly where the economic benefit from conflict comes from. Blow up the old shit, buy new, more high tech, more expensive new shit.
        • by atam (115117) on Friday May 02 2003, @10:54PM (#5867213)
          While this money spent on weapons does translate to some employment, it should be noted that a lot of the defence budget are actually spent towards R&D. You could waste billions of dollars to test run dozens of the experimental weapon in order to get it work correctly. This money does not necessarily create that many employment. It is much better off spending the money on infrastructure projects, such as repairing broken highways, bridges, schools, etc. It will not only get more people to be employed, but also improve the general living standard.
              • by Chris Tucker (302549) on Saturday May 03 2003, @02:18AM (#5867799) Homepage
                So atam sez:

                (stupid shit about $600 toilet seats)

                OK, listen up.

                It wasn't a toilet seat of the type you sit your fat ass on.

                It was a fiberglass unit that incorporated a toilet seat, while covering the entire toilet mechanism that was installed on an aircraft.

                The DoD bought ~50 of them (possibly fewer) and each and every one of them HAD to be essentially hand made.

                Why? Because automating the procedure would have increased the unit cost by an order of magnitude.

                You want to know where all those $500 hammers come from? The PAPERWORK, that's where.

                Your head would explode if you knew of the obscene amounts of paperwork required for a government entity to buy anything.

                And you have to pay the people who fill out the forms and someone has to supply that money to pay the bureaucrats who fill out those forms.
  • besides the obvious *geek* factor this kind of *experiments* and demonstrations should make us all stop to think a bit ...

    how do we prevent terrorist from using this kind of stuff ?

    limiting acces to knowledge (with DMCA style laws)?

    creating a orwellian policial state where all are suspect ans subject to vigilance (and who controls the vigilantes) ?

    limitating the publication of (now) public-domain stuff ('cause it can be used to devilish ends) ?

    the RIAA/DMCA people already want to control what could go on the net, and that is, maybe, only the beggining (see China - although there 's hope there - see the massive failure of the SARS coverup) so maybe it is time to start thinking about how to mantain the net free and at the same time this planet a safe planet to stay ...

    just my two uros,

    cheers from Portugal
    • by taxelxii (52767) on Friday May 02 2003, @10:07PM (#5866983)
      The real question is not 'how do we prevent terrorist from using this king of stuff' , since if joe-nobody can build a cruise missile in his backyard, you can be sure that terrorist organisations could have built it years ago. However, they do not need to buy their own missile. They have enough money to buy *quality* missiles from kind multinational corporations when they want to.

      The question this article raises is why would somebody who is not totally out of his mind would want to build a cruise missile. I don't think the *geek* factor alone would be a correct answer. A cruise missile... as if the world needed more of those. I cannot believe the man could not find anything more useful to build.
      • With a little bit of effort, assuming the engine can be started and stopped at will and has reasonably accurate guidance, this could be used for other things... like replacing traffic helicopters over urban areas with relatively safe rocket-powered cameras that fly around over the city until they're low on fuel, then fly to an appropriate location and land for refueling.

        Before you say that this is nuts, think about this: helicopters are far more dangerous than any airplane. There have been a total of 21 deaths to date in U.S. commercial airplanes this year according to the NTSB. That's based on up to 150,000 flights per day.

        So far, the U.S. Military, has already seen 29 helicopter deaths (and 8 additional British casualties in one of those crashes), and at least one other minor crash with no fatalities, and this is not including any that resulted from being under fire. That's based on a few hundred flights per day in Iraq, so I'm guessing a few thousand worldwide. Oh, and that's total flights, not helicopter flights. I doubt the percentage of helicopter flights is particularly high... maybe a couple of hundred helicopter flights per day as a high estimate.

        That would make helicopters about 1,000 times as dangerous as airplanes. Lest you think this is a fluke of the way the military uses aircraft, the statistics on the crash rate of helicopters in Alaska should tell you otherwise. The only problem is that airplanes fly too fast for people to get a good view of what's going on in terms of ground traffic.

        Enter the cruise missile. Fly ten of them around, snapping pictures and shooting video clips and periodically dumping the footage back via 802.11b networks on the ground. Near-instant gratification, and without putting your staff at risk.

        Not to mention that if a blimp is cool, a missile must be... well, really cool. :-)

    • how do we prevent terrorist from using this kind of stuff ?
      You can't protect yourself 100% from the fact that terrorist could construct and use a LCCM. The illusion of security is something that you just have top deal with. The illusion that a nation can protect itself 100% from a terrorist attack is quite naive.
      limiting acces to knowledge (with DMCA style laws)?
      Won't work. The information someone needs to do this is already public. Everything one needs about electronics, mechanics, jet engines, physics, math, rochet science etc.; it's all avalible as for someone to "piece togheter".
      creating a orwellian policial state where all are suspect ans subject to vigilance (and who controls the vigilantes) ?
      With PATRIOT ACT and the enchanced PATRIOT II you will probably get there faster than you know of..
      limitating the publication of (now) public-domain stuff ('cause it can be used to devilish ends) ?
      Well I doubt that would work since someone who wants the information could get it from Europe, Russia or/and Asia.
      And the cost of putting a limit on informatin in areas such as electronics or rocket science would be *way* over what anyone would accept.


      The best way to prevent a terrorist attack with LCCM's is to keep an eye on who's who in rocket scienc, jet propulsion and turbo jets.
      The powerplant on the rocket is the one single component that i difficault to get(buy) or construct.

      Or better (like thats gonna happen); try to eliminate the reason behind the fact that there actually are (probably) somone who wants to fire a LCCM on New York.

      • by timeOday (582209) on Friday May 02 2003, @11:35PM (#5867346)
        Or better (like thats gonna happen); try to eliminate the reason behind the fact that there actually are (probably) somone who wants to fire a LCCM on New York.
        I doubt you could appease Kim Chong-il, Timothy McVeigh, Bin Laden, and the Unibomber all at the same time, even if you tried.
        • I doubt you could appease Kim Chong-il, Timothy McVeigh, Bin Laden, and the Unibomber all at the same time

          First of all, they're not all terrorists, so there are different ways to engage each threat. Let's assume you're talking about terrorists.

          They need a friendly environment in which to hide and train. This is easy today, with many people hating the US. The hatred can be tempered by deeds: perceived sensitivity and fairness in dealing with Palestine; transparent and fair rebuilding of Iraq. Basically, improve the chances that a righteous Arab would call the cops on the terrorists living next door.

          They need money. People angry at the US give money to terrorists. Decrease this anger, and they are left with a few independently wealthy fundamentalists, whose assets are much easier to track down and seize.

          They need weapons. You might be aware that the US is one of the biggest exporters of weapons. You don't have to cut it out, but you do want to be more careful who you sell them to.

    • how do we prevent terrorist from using this kind of stuff ?

      Dammit, a bunch of teenagers with box cutters have fly jumbo jets in the WTC. They had about 200 times more explosive in these jets than in one of these missiles and their equipement cost was box cutters and airplane tickets. Why would they want to build one of those missiles?

      You have to solve the weakest link, not the sexy link.

      Now I'm putting my aluminium foil beanie [zapatopi.net] back on.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:59PM (#5866945) Homepage
    There was a time when I believed that "information wants to be free" and all that. In some ways, I still believe in the ethic, but to put some levels of knowledge in the hands of those who aren't disciplined enough to use it well is just a bad idea... especially in this day and age.

    The world is full of wanna-be-s and a few who actually are. The few who actually are will not be stopped by restricting information -- it will get out and be had anyway. But at least restrictions will help slow down the amount and frequency of those wanna-be-s who will be to a pace that could potentially be handled by counter-forces.

    Putting out information such as "home-brewed cruise-missiles" is just unbelievably irresponsible... especially when the purpose is "just for the hell of it." I'm no fan of censorship or restriction of free speech. That just sucks because when you start acting against one opinion, all other opinions are fair game. But this somehow doesn't qualify as an opinion... it's more like a wish or hope that someone else out there could use this as a means to express him/herself in a way that murders hundreds or thousands of people. ...what's next?
    • You make a very good point. However, I believe anyone wishing to use a cruise missile to kill somebody wouldn't look up the plans on the internet. Someone that villanous would probably have connections to people who know how to do it. They also probably wouldn't build it from scratch on their own, not knowing whether or not it would work.

      It is still a risk though. This brings up many moral issues, because censorship and free speech are both very sensitive topics. I can really go either way on this one, and I don't really know which side I'd go on.
    • OK...look.

      The R/C jet engine crowd is alive and well. Plus there is no shortage of aerodynamics knowledge, construction techniques and materials, and powerful computing, control, and guidance hardware. Heck, all I'd need is to find one R/C buddy, and we'd have 3/4 of the necessary materials already on hand.

      Someone is going to do it, and it's best that we find out BEFORE it comes as a total surprise. Maybe we can figure some way to intercept.

      Hmm, anyone in the model rocket crowd ready to develop a defense array? This is going to be fun! Pitting toys against each other, except with real lives at stake! Now do you wonder why some people go into the military?
        • Alternative to total freedom of information?
          How about something little called "responsible self-censorship"?


          Great! We agree! People should make their own descision about what they say and what they don't say.

          You know, thinking "is it wise to propagate the info"

          Exactly! And the answer is YES.
          He is "propagating" the information to people how never thought about what sorts of stuff terrorists can build easily. Actual terrorists have already put plenty of thought and research into building weapons, and that info is readily available on Google or even at my local library.

          -
  • Not too hard (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Friday May 02 2003, @09:59PM (#5866948) Homepage
    He's really just building a model airplane with a pulse-jet engine. The engine technology is basically that of a WWII V-1. But the guidance will be far, far better. V-1 "buzz bombs" had trouble hitting the right city.

    The impressive thing about cruise missiles is the multi-thousand mile range. That's achieved with very clever turbojet engine design, and some of that technology is still classified. Still, it's decades old.

    (It's annoying that general aviation is still putt-putting around on reciprocating engines, decades after everything big went turbine.)

    • Williams Jet Engine (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Latent Heat (558884) on Friday May 02 2003, @10:44PM (#5867171)
      I heard (in Aviation Week - aka AvLeak) that some dotcom entrepreneur dudes crossed over to work on a 7-person jet taxi -- the idea was for the price of first class airfare you would have a nationwide version of a ride-share cab system. They were going for some ridiculous price point (like half a million for a jet -- you can hardly get a prop plane for those bucks these days). They were going to use a pair of Williams mini fanjet engines of the type used on cruise missiles. Those Williams engines are a whole 'nother story just by themselves -- like they take solid blocks of titanium and use an NC machine to mill out the whole rotor assembly for one of these things in one piece.

      Anyway, the aircraft went through its inevitable weight growth (like software bloat when you keep adding features to a package) and it has outgrown the Williams jet engines, and they begged Williams to come up with a higher thrust version, but Williams has a good thing going with the cruise missile and said nothing doing about changing their design. Trouble is that the next tier of jet engine costs ten times as much which means the half mil price tag on the jet plane is out the windows, so I don't know what is happening.

    • by MtViewGuy (197597) on Friday May 02 2003, @11:08PM (#5867255)
      I think while it's within easy reach to build what amounts to a large RC model powered by a pulsejet engine and guided by GPS, there are a number of issues he needs to address:

      1. The pulsejet ain't going to be quiet. The motorboat sound of pulsejet engines are going to be dead giveaways of its presence. It'll be better to use a small RC jet engine with careful exhaust design to muffle the jet engine sound or a modified RC piston engine that drives a multibladed propeller so the engine runs at a lower speed to reduce engine noise.

      2. A 10 kilogram warhead isn't going to do much in the way of damage, unless it dispenses a really toxic biological agent like botulin poison.

      3. Guiding the DIY cruise missile is going to be a very tricky proposition. While GPS will get the missile to the general target area, the lack of the ability to avoid obstacles and to fly very low to avoid most radars means the missile will have to cruise at about the same altitude as the V-1 (about just over 1,000 meters off the ground), which means it can be intercepted by modern ground AA systems.
  • emails (Score:5, Funny)

    "Not surprisingly, that piece has produced a significant amount of feedback from the tens of thousands of people who have read it so far"

    I am a felow hobbiest, please sned me detailed plans.
    FROM: moustashiod_villian@yahoo.com

  • Good luck to him. (Score:5, Informative)

    by dj28 (212815) on Friday May 02 2003, @10:27PM (#5867091)
    However, I don't think it's nearly as easy as he paints it out on his website. He may have a working rocket design, but that's not the hard part. The hard part is getting the guidance system to work with your rocket. That doesn't come "off the shelf", and he's going to have to do a lot of software hacking in order to get it all to work together. Not only does this guy have to be a quasi-expert in rocket design, he's going to have to know a lot about software design.

    He's trying to do something that most nations in the world can't even do. It takes entire nations years to come up with even a short-range cruise missile. This guy thinks he can do it in under $5000, by himself? Building a rocket-propelled go-kart is one thing. Making a cruise missile with an accuracy of +/- 100 yards is a whole different level.

    And this doesn't even take into account FAA regulations he's going to have to comply with if he plans on lobbing one of those missiles on a 100 mile flight path.
    • Re:Good luck (Score:5, Interesting)

      by uberdave (526529) on Friday May 02 2003, @11:33PM (#5867339) Homepage
      It is not difficult at all, and he is using off the shelf technology. This [modelairplanenews.com] will give him straight, level flight regardless of wind, or minor design imbalances. GPS units are relatively cheap. The only other thing you need is a microcomputer to glue it all together. A PIC microcontroller can do the job for less than $20.

      As a matter of fact, check out this [stanford.edu] site. GPS navigation of model airplanes has been around for at least seven years already.
      Before a flight, Montgomery programs into a laptop computer the path that he wants the aircraft to follow. This information then is downloaded into the airplane's onboard computer. After placing the plane on the runway and starting the engine, he pushes a single button, the aircraft takes off, flies the preprogrammed course and then lands all by itself.


      Averaged over a kilometer course, the deviation in the aircraft's position from the programmed course was typically less than 0.5 meter horizontally, 0.25 meter vertically and 0.25 meters per second in air speed, Montgomery reported.

      "Carrier differential GPS is accurate enough for most purposes, so you don't need a lot of expensive equipment," he said.
      The only difference I see is that this guy is using a jet powered craft, and is calling it a cruise missile. Other than that, it is the same thing.

      Oh, and by the way, the FAA has no jurisdiction in New Zealand.
      • Re:Good luck (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday May 03 2003, @12:10AM (#5867474) Homepage Journal
        Perhaps a short description of the actual process involved will illustrate your point as well.

        As you say, you could use a PIC. You can't get something as accurate as a tomahawk this way; you will have to settle for hitting a building as opposed to flying it through a window of a building. (Since GPS is supposed to be accurate to about 15 meters or so, worst case, with SA off, and most buildings are more than 30 meters in at least one dimension, hitting the building is pretty reasonable.)

        The craft will of course not always be making a straight, level flight. There are environmental issues. But a course correction every second or two should be sufficient.

        The GPS can deliver hyper-accurate time, and fairly accurate position. From these things one can compute one's airspeed and the direction one is heading. It is then a simple matter to determine which direction one needs to turn to correct one's course.

        One would plot a series of waypoints with some sort of computer software, possibly some sort of freely available GIS package, using maps available from the USGS. Once the craft is launched it will immediately begin determining which way it must turn to head to the waypoint. The little gyro replacement will provide straight and level flight when desired. Servos are trivial to control with off the shelf hardware, like a basic stamp for example, it's nice to use a dedicated microcontroller just for servo control so you don't have to tie up your primary microprocessor doing something that silly. You could also just build some custom hardware for it since they're pulse rate (or pulse width?) controlled. It would be a relatively uncomplicated task.

        Now, a tomahawk missile is capable of recognizing its target by image, and it can dodge things in its path. Obviously it has significantly more processing power than the machine we're describing. However, my point was hitting a building is easy, not flying through a window, again, as the tomahawk supposedly can. (They claim a 1 meter square hit box.) All we really need to do is follow waypoints, which we can precompute on our launch control system. As the comment above this one points out, doing so will be amazingly trivial. I suspect the poster mentioned a PIC chip because they are insanely cheap and they speak RS232 serial with nothing more than something to raise voltages, for which there are several standard solutions readily available. This allows trivial interfacing to the GPS. IIRC the Basic Stamp also provides RS232, so a pic with enough legs could speak serial to both the servo controller (at a suitably high speed) and the GPS. You only need TX and RX for each connection, because the only other connection to do about 19.2k on a good day is a ground. With four wires to the servo controller you could do higher transfer rates, or reliably get 19.2k, which should be plenty.

        In other words, using GPS makes this fairly trivial. The only real defense against it is GPS jamming, since it will be small and reasonably radar-transparent to the point where if it is flying low enough the only way you will spot it is visually, and good luck to you on that front.

        The next step beyond this is using radar or laser imaging to find the ground and various obstacles, and apply enough processing power to the problem to make it able to dodge trees, phone poles, aircraft (unless they're your target), and so on. That does make the problem dramatically harder, and raises the cost of the electronics by several orders of magnitude, but of course it is still within the ability and budget of the more determined and wealthy hobbyists. This necessarily means that a hostile organization with some fairly lucrative funding source, such as drugs or oil (similar compounds from a financial standpoint) could put whole fleets of them into the air.

        The next step after that would be inertial tracking so that it could still operate when GPS is jammed. After that, you want to do EMP hardening, which is probably more expensive than everything else put together.

  • Quick! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rhinobird (151521) on Friday May 02 2003, @11:04PM (#5867249) Homepage
    We must slashdot this page before the information gets into the wrong hands!
  • by Guppy06 (410832) on Friday May 02 2003, @11:33PM (#5867338) Journal
    A Tom Cruise Missile?

    Help! The Scientologists are after me!
  • It seems we have a bit of a paradox here:

    1. Terrorists want to kill as many Americans/Israelis/whomever as possible.
    2. Anybody with access to the internet, basic levels of clue, and moderate amounts of cash, can screw together cruise missiles, dirty bombs, chemical weapons, etc etc, in complete secrecy.
    3. Chemical weapons, cruise missiles etc. are an effective way of killing people.
    4. Intelligence/police agencies are incapable of preventing such attacks before they occur.
    5. Therefore, given the above, lots of people should be dead through cruise missile/chemical weapon/insert diabolical nasty weapon here attacks by terrorists.

    But the above hasn't happened. With the spectacular exception of September 11 (which wasn't achieved through high-tech means), the best terrorists have been able to do is conventional bombing, and they haven't been able to kill that many people, even Israelis.

    So, what's the problem with the above argument?

    • by praksys (246544) on Saturday May 03 2003, @01:58AM (#5867767) Homepage
      There is an old joke about economists that goes like this:

      Economist A: "Look there's $50 on the ground."
      Economist B: "Don't bother to pick it up, it's not worth the effort."
      Economist A: "How can you be so sure?"
      Economist B: "If it was worth the effort then someone would have done it already."

      The opportunity, and probably the motive, required for the September 11 attacks has been available for decades, but it took a while for the right people to get the idea and put it into action. The possibility of building cruise missiles has only been around for a few years (cheap ones anyway). The fact that it hasn't been done yet proves very little.

  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Saturday May 03 2003, @02:20AM (#5867807)
    The United States Navy sponsored a test project with a ~$500,000 budget in late 1998 to see if an independent team could build a reliable cruise missile weapon using off the shelf technology. I suppose that since the project failed they quietly cancelled it or declared it a success (since the independent team failed to develop a useful weapon) and ended it. Things may be different now but $5,000 probably won't be enough to build an effective military grade cruise missile, especially when one considers the advanced counter-measures employed by the United States and other Navies. I doubt that a $5,000 homemade cruise missile would defeat the Aegis system employed by the United States Navy. I was able to find only this small snippet of information on the web regarding the whole affair:

    missile defense [vce.com]

    "14 Apr 98 The Kraken cruise missile built by the BMDO Countermeasures Hands-On Project crashed on take off from Point Mugu, California. The Kraken was built to test the ability of a rest-of-world country to develop this type of weapon."
  • by ikekrull (59661) on Saturday May 03 2003, @07:26AM (#5868387) Homepage
    A 'cruise missile' without an explosive payload is just a model jet with a sophisticated guidance system.

    Perhaps the term 'missile' is a term that carries a negative connotation, but semantics should really not affect the fundamental issue that it is OK to experiment with aeronautics and electronics in your back yard because its your back yard and we (well, Bruce does) live in a moe-or-less free society.

    Personally, i would think a more interesting goal would be to build something akin to a Predator UAV than a cruise missile, but that is just me.

    John Carmack is trying to build a fucking InterContinental Ballistic Missile in his backyard, but everyone seems to love that project.

      • Yes. Please do.

        Right to bear arms (poor bear...) is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government... when the government has smart bombs, nuclear weapons, and the brand-new F-22 Raptor at it's disposal, a 30-06 rifle is about as useful as a shiv made from an old spoon.