$96 3D-printed rocket that recalculates its mid-air trajectory using a $5 sensor

Post by srean » Sun, Mar 15, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

dgroshev wrote: post #284

computerdork wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a point - cheap drones have changed warfare - but you might be simplifying the issue. As some warfare experts online have discussed, it isn't that cheap drones are the only weapon that is used in Ukraine (or warfare in general), it is one option in vast array of options based on the situation (although, agreed, it is taking on a much bigger significance). Look at the war in Iran. They did a pretty standard p…

It's fairly important to distinguish what kind of drones are we talking about [1]. Iran's using Group 3 drones. The GP is confusing Iran's neighbours not being ready to counter group 3 drones with the drones being inevitably effective. These drones are by necessity large and slow, because they need a lot of energy and aerodynamic efficiency to get their range. That means that they are vulnerable to cheap counters, wh…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 15, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

dgroshev wrote: post #240

vidarh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA is literally about a $96 rocket. > propulsion, warheads, arming and safety, QA, traceability, climate and shelf life stability. You're entirely missing the point. These do not need to be reliable for the scenario I hinted at. They also do not need to be armed. They need to be large enough that if one of them is a higher quality rocket (not part of the $10k) that contains actual explosives, you have serious destru…

> TFA is literally about a $96 rocket It's a firework-grade rocket with no payload that can't even ignite reliably. To imitate even a TBM or a MBRM, you need similar kinematics, even if you're running without a payload. Maybe your solid rocket motor would be a touch smaller because you're not delivering hundreds of kilograms of explosives, but it still has to be large because of the rocket equation. With a large moto…

Post by Mars008 » Sun, Mar 15, 2026, 7:23 PM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #38

redgridtactical wrote: post #13

The engineering is genuinely impressive for $96, but naming the repo "MANPADS-System-Launcher-and-Rocket" on GitHub is going to attract exactly the kind of attention you don't want. ITAR implications aside, the interesting part is the mid-flight trajectory recalculation on a $5 sensor. That's the same basic problem military guidance systems solve with hardware that costs thousands. The gap between consumer electronic…

> The gap between consumer electronics and mil-spec capability keeps shrinking My friend's brother works in munitions and had, in his spare time, designed and prototyped a missile that could be built for about 10k. He pretty much was ignored by the contractor he works for. Shockingly, as of a couple weeks ago, they are all hot and bothered to talk.

Post by dandanua » Sun, Mar 15, 2026, 7:26 PM UTC

ralferoo wrote: post #238

I remember an anecdote our robotics lecturer told our university class in 1995, which was about how in the west we try to make expensive things that are the absolute best of technology and how the other side didn't have that luxury and relied on ingenuity. He described a cold war Russian missile they had somehow obtained and were tasked with trying to reverse engineer. Ostensibly, it was thought to be a heat seeking…

Post by chroma » Sun, Mar 15, 2026, 7:29 PM UTC

bluescrn wrote: post #250

chroma wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless it was nighttime or the engagement happened at low altitude on a cloudy day, wouldn’t that usually lock onto the sun?

The wobble would only 'scan' a limited field of view, so only if the sun was in that view