rockoon rocket

Today I woke up with an idea of tying up a rocket to a weather balloon I research this idea and found out it is called a rockoon rocket. The original concept was developed by Cmdr. Lee Lewis, Cmdr. G. Halvorson, S. F. Singer, and James A. Van Allen during the Aerobee rocket firing cruise of the U.S.S. Norton Sound on March 1, 1949.
And just wanted to Know if any one has try or done a rockoon rocket ?

I've never heard of anyone launching a model rocket from a balloon.

I wonder what the waiver would look like and how hard it would be to get?

I found out that there are two company that have done this before, JP Aerospace and ARCASPACE

Yes it has been done before, first by professionals, culminating in Project Farside:

https://highpowerrocketry.blogspot.com/2009/01/project-farside.html

A few amateur teams have done it also, but it is very hard to launch a rocket from a balloon for several reasons. It is hard to get FAA approval, hard to wait 30 minutes or more for the balloon to get in position, and hard to know where it will be by then! The rocket needs to survive a long soak at very low temperatures and still launch. At high altitudes, the air is very thin so aerodynamic stability is hard to attain. (One need bigger fins, higher thrust, or canted fins, or a rotating launch tower to help.)

All this aside, I still consider an N motor launched from 70,000 feet to be one of the least expensive ways for someone in the hobby to launch a small payload, including camera, to space. I like the N10,000 because it will quickly get up to speed, but worry about the lack of total impulse. Also consider an N5800. It should be in the lightest possible rocket (every gram shaved off the total mass will greatly increase altitude.)

If you can get an N 5800 to mach 4 at 100,000 feet, that should be enough for space.

Wow thank you for the info New Ocean
I am trying to find what fire off the rocket at the altitude i don't think gps well work and and can a barometric pressure sensor work in such thin air

I'm slowly working on pushing the IEEE club to make a venture into this with me, and have done a fair bit of background numbercrunching. It looks like from 90,000', you can stage an L to a J, and make it to space with clean margin, depending on how much weight you shave. This is of course entirely dependent on whether you actually do the engineering on it. Every quarter gram has a huge effect, and the closer you can get that upper stage to weighing nothing, the better it will fly. But as mentioned above, you need really fast burning motors, or at least motors with really high thrust peaks in the beginning, to get up to a speed where there is ANY restorative force on the fins.

Figured you weigh in on this topic. Glad to see you're still working on this project.

When you build a rocket for this type of use, what do you look for more thrust or longer burn time

Another concern is getting the motor started. Igniting a rocket motor at sea level is a lot different than lighting a motor at altitude.

You actually want as short a burn as possible, but as long as you get stable flight, it doesn't make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. The rocket may be coasting for upwards of 2 minutes, so the difference between a 1 second burn and a 5 second burn really doesn't change much. But like I said, that is all depending on whether you get stable flight, so the faster the burn, the better.

To get a realistic idea of what it is to launch in these situations, try launching your rocket without a launch rod (don't actually, because that is against code). You'll quickly see that it's not gonna work unless it gets going fast FAST.

And as per the waiver, good luck with that one... As an independent project, you will never get it. As a university group you probably would have a higher chance of getting it, if you can demonstrate sufficient control over the situation. The NFPA does not regulate work done by universities, so that will get you a bit more leniency on the launch site, but you still have to deal with the FAA, and they can be serious sticklers for these things.

wow i always thought the long burn time would better
As the waiver goes i don't know why it such a big deal if thousands of weather balloon are lunched every day and when the rocket fire it well be well above the altitude most aircraft fly at

rockoon rocket said:

wow i always thought the long burn time would better
As the waiver goes i don't know why it such a big deal if thousands of weather balloon are lunched every day and when the rocket fire it well be well above the altitude most aircraft fly at

Click to expand...

What goes up, must come down. You're not going into orbit.

rockoon rocket said:

wow i always thought the long burn time would better
As the waiver goes i don't know why it such a big deal if thousands of weather balloon are lunched every day and when the rocket fire it well be well above the altitude most aircraft fly at

Click to expand...

Long time is better at low altitudes because it reduces burnout velocity and thus atmospheric drag. At 70, 80, or 90,000 feet you are pretty much beyond the drag. Low thrust is fine also but getting the rocket stable calls for high thrust, bigger fins, and also some kind of rotation perhaps. You can get rotation by rotating the launch tower, or rail, or by canting the fins. Spin-up motors are possible, but I don't love the idea because of the complexity and risk involved.

It is a very big deal to launch a rocket (large, heavy, dangerous) from a balloon in near space. Weather balloons contain very light components, and a parachute that will bring it all down in a safe manner. A rocket from 90,000 feet can land anywhere withing tens of miles, possibly intact which means ballistic (potentially supersonic.) A 4 inch carbon fiber rocket with an N motor casing inside, if ballistic, could make short work of an automobile roof or even a building. It is highly unlikely that it would hit anyone, but the FAA isn't interested in highly unlikely. It is within the realm of possiblity that a rocket launched horizontally from blackrock, perhaps after drifting 15 miles SSW, could get as far as Reno. A mach 4 rocket at 100,000 feet could cover that distance. At least that is what the FAA is worried about. They actually are more likely to allow a simple rocket of immense size, like an S rocket that weighs 800 lbs, than a smaller rocket on a balloon because it is more predictable.

There is a HUGE difference and you should know that the greatest single challenge is usually paperwork and getting FAA approval on this kind of thing. Check with JP aerospace because they are the most experienced and seem to be getting permission somehow.

I think you would have as good a chance at getting government permission to fly from a place like WSMR, if you are hooked up with a University. That is to say, not a great chance either way.

Back to the technical details:

You need the rocket to stay warm, and for the motor to have a burst disk in the nozzle. The ignition should be by radio (manual) and only armed within a certain range. If the whole thing drifts more than say 10 miles, you have to stand down and an automatic cutdown will be triggered, resulting in a parachute recovery of the payload. I am liking an N 5800 for this, but if you get a really big balloon better to go with an O 8000 just to be on the safe side. Lifting the required mass 75 kg (maybe 50 kg including launch tower, electronics, and rocket if you are a really slick about it) is going to take a big balloon, or many many small ones. Helium is also expensive, as it is not a renewable resource, and we are actually using it right now for silly things like party balloons. *You can also consider hydrogen as discussed below.

Also check with Team Prometheus because they have been doing some undisclosed research on the matter, but I am sure they are willing to help.

I was thinking of the Bonneville Salt Flats as a place to lunch it, it has a lot more area then Black Rock, New Mexico

rockoon rocket said:

I was thinking of the Bonneville Salt Flats as a place to lunch it, it has a lot more area then Black Rock, New Mexico

Click to expand...

Home is the best place!

New Ocean said:

Helium is also expensive, as it is not a renewable resource, and we are actually using it right now for silly things like party balloons.

Click to expand...

And people are breathing it in for fun...:eyeroll:

New Oceand do you know any place where they sell a telemetry system for the ignition and video transmission

I don't mean to offend you, but honestly it sounds like you are way out of your league. There is no general "how to" book on launching a rocket from a balloon into space. There are a bunch of groups through the years that have done it, and we've provided info on all of them. But when it comes down to the actual equipment they use, that is entirely up to you. The reason those rockets were able to reach space is because they shaved off every single ounce everywhere possible. That means no mass produced off the shelf products were used. Someone probably spent a year or two putting together a communication system that was the perfect balance of bandwidth, range, power consumption, interference with other parts, weight, and volume.

I know that there are areas of this project that I know very little about, such as the specific electronics, and that is why I am teaming up with the electrical engineering club to work on this project.


And no, the first step is not to launch a rocket into space. The first step is to fly a balloon to 100,000' and recover it, because believe me, that is a tricky enough feat as it is.


I want to help, but you've got to do your bit too.

Like $150,000 you have???

I have already flown about 21 weather balloon and recover 19 of them so the the next step well be buying a cheap model rocket and test which ignition work the best

Well that changes things. In that case it should be fairly simple to start pushing your way towards launching a rocket from one of your balloons. What are you using for tracking on your balloons? Before you try to launch your rocket from the balloon, you want to try just carrying up the electronics as a payload of the balloon to make sure it all works. Do you have any links to your work so we can get some background on where you're at? It sounds like you know a lot more than I initially thought.

New Ocean said:

... Helium is also expensive, as it is not a renewable resource, and we are actually using it right now for silly things like party balloons...

Click to expand...

I didn't know that.

I didn't know this either ...

[YOUTUBE]2Z6UJbwxBZI[/YOUTUBE]

Greg

GregGleason said:

I didn't know that.

I didn't know this either ...

[YOUTUBE]2Z6UJbwxBZI[/YOUTUBE]

Greg

Click to expand...

Wow that is neat

I attend the University of Alabama in Huntsville and I have a friend who is doing a rockoon project. I think he's using it for his Master's thesis. I'll see if I can get more info on it for you.

rockoon rocket said:

I have already flown about 21 weather balloon and recover 19 of them so the the next step well be buying a cheap model rocket and test which ignition work the best

Click to expand...

Hundreds of weather balloons are launch daily by the NWS to get high altitude wind information. There are international standards for transmitting weather data back to ground stations, and once launched the entire flight requires no active controls. The balloon and payload package rises until the balloon bursts and the parachute hanging from it inflates and safely brings the payload back to the ground.

Radiosondes are rather inexpensive, lightweight, and commercially available. Any rocket launching system is a custom job, and it requires special techniques to ignite any rocket motor above 20 kft. Until the weather balloon instrument package, what happens to the rocket and launcher after the balloon breaks or if the rocket doesn't ignite. Without a recovery system, even a model rocket will descent at 200 mph, and a high power rocket closer to 500 mph present a real impact hazard.

It certainly would be possible to attempt a model rocket launch from a weather type balloon, but it would not do anything practical. Any larger rocket would require a waiver which would be very hard to get and expensive to comply with FAA requirements.

If balloon launched rockets were practical and economical, they would be used today. The reality is that it is much less expensive to launch rockets from the ground than it is to launch them from a balloon. By the late 50's multiple sounding rockets were launched daily into space (100 km) to get high alluded meteorological data. This can be compared with the dozen or so balloon launched rockets.

Bob

PS. Black Rock Desert is in Nevada and is much larger and more isolated than Bonneville.

Lentamental said:

...And as per the waiver, good luck with that one... As an independent project, you will never get it. As a university group you probably would have a higher chance of getting it, if you can demonstrate sufficient control over the situation. The NFPA does not regulate work done by universities, so that will get you a bit more leniency on the launch site, but you still have to deal with the FAA, and they can be serious sticklers for these things.

Click to expand...

1. NFPA does not regulate anyone.
2. Universities, individuals, non-profit and for profit corporations have to comply with the same FAA regulations. Ther are no exceptions for universities.

Bob

New Ocean said:

Yes it has been done before, first by professionals, culminating in Project Farside:

https://highpowerrocketry.blogspot.com/2009/01/project-farside.html

A few amateur teams have done it also, but it is very hard to launch a rocket from a balloon for several reasons. It is hard to get FAA approval, hard to wait 30 minutes or more for the balloon to get in position, and hard to know where it will be by then! The rocket needs to survive a long soak at very low temperatures and still launch. At high altitudes, the air is very thin so aerodynamic stability is hard to attain. (One need bigger fins, higher thrust, or canted fins, or a rotating launch tower to help.)

All this aside, I still consider an N motor launched from 90,000 feet to be one of the least expensive ways for someone in the hobby to launch a small payload, including camera, to space. I like the N10,000 because it will quickly get up to speed, but worry about the lack of total impulse. Also consider an N5800. It should be in the lightest possible rocket (every gram shaved off the total mass will greatly increase altitude.)

If you can get an N 5800 to Mach 4 at 100,000 feet, that should be enough for space.

Click to expand...

Super Loki and Arcus sounding rockets went into space (defined as 100 km) on a daily basis in the 60's. A PAC-3 Patriot, Ky Michaelson's GoFast, and Ricard Nakka's SugarShot-2-Space are 10" diameter ground launched missiles that are capable of 100+ km apogees. Any well designed 10" rocket traveling at Mach >5 @ ~40 kft will coast up to over 100 km.

Unfortunately the proponents of "inexpensive" balloon launched rocket systems routinely fail to do a proper systems analysis of the problem based on the laws of physics. When the analysis is done properly, you invariably find that extra propellant is much cheaper than the balloon launch system, and that you can make the balloons large enough to loft a very large rocket.

You will also see that most of these projects claim that it would be possible to and a balloon launched rocket into orbit. Unfortunately they fail to properly do the orbital mechanics, as drag is not the critical factor to obtain orbit. Delta-v is. As mentioned above, a Mach 5 rocket can reach space, however that's not orbit. To attain orbit, the vehicle must attain Mach 25 velocity perpendicular to the surface to the earth. The energy required to put an equivalent mass into orbit is 25 times greater than ballistically launching it into space! And the vehicle weight is likely to go a the velocity ratio cubed or 125 time heavier rocket system.

Bob

Sorry no link. For tracking i used 2 cheap cell phone and a SPOT Satellite GPS

hey check out this video of rockoon rocket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKmPUE7tT7o&feature=player_embedded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7UNtzLWBlk

bobkrech said:

Unfortunately the proponents of "inexpensive" balloon launched rocket systems routinely fail to do a proper systems analysis of the problem based on the laws of physics. When the analysis is done properly, you invariably find that extra propellant is much cheaper than the balloon launch system, and that you can make the balloons large enough to loft a very large rocket.Bob

Click to expand...

The laws of physics don't always translate into some concrete law of cost. If you mass produce super loki darts, they will certainly be cheaper than rockoons for a given altitude. That plus reliability, and they are much cooler to watch from the ground.

But for a one-off flight, I doubt that a CTI N motor on a balloon is more expensive than a custom made S motor. In the attempt this OP asks about, you would have a normal hpr rocket on an N motor. That may cost you $2500 for the rocket, motor, reload, and electronics. (It will basically be a slightly modified 4 inch altitude attempt rocket.) The balloon system may double the total cost, and add about the same amount again for logistics and transportation. How much does an S motor and airframe, not to mention launch tower, cost? I am thinking about the metal airframe, welding and machining the metal parts, the propellant alone which must cost a few bucks per pound, and a massive recovery system ($500 in parachutes alone.) Transporting a large rocket vs. a small rocket alone is going to double your transportation costs, not to mention a huge launch tower. Get ready for a Uhaul box truck at least or in the case of the Go Fast rocket, a custom painted winne. We know that the Go fast team spent more money than they had to, as the CSXT had some much cheaper attempts in the past, but even a bargain S motor flight is going to break the bank. How much did the OuR project cost, way back in the 1990s? I think it was around $30,000 iirc.

Back to the rockoon costs, how about all that helium? Well let me be conservative and say that we need to lift about 160 lbs for this attempt. That calls for 2500 cuft of helium, at a cost of less than $500 if my source is correct. So far this is not looking so bad...

I think the rockoon should be doable for about $10,000, and that is about as cheap as I would hope to get space, short of some really well designed N5800 to N5800 to N5800 flight. Or perhaps a really slick P to N flight would work also. But delaying for tens of seconds before staging adds lots of complexity.

Cost does not seem to be the problem with rockoons - it is more about the legal and technical challenges.

Rockoons are very difficult to pull off. Despite what has been said above, no hobby team has EVER launched a rockoon to space, and I would go so far as to say no team has ever had a fully successful large rockoon launch either. (JP aerospace has been doing it with small rockets.) All the more reason to get it right some day, imho. "For me the action is the juice..." sort of thing.

I hope the OP does attempt this, but only after carefully considering the legal issues. Do it legally or not at all.

PS you talked about going with Bonneville - the salt flats are very large, but are also within 50 miles of a major city - SLC with more than 1 million people in the metro area. I think Reno is 70 miles SSW of the lowest portion of the "Y" of blackrock, and is significantly smaller than SLC. The mesa is smaller than the salt flats, but the area around blackrock is also empty for many miles and suitable for rocket recovery (no giant salt lakes for your rocket to fall in.) The most important thing to consider is how far will the balloon drift and in what direction. If it could be predicted, I would consider launching at a different site and having it drift over blackrock. Only when it passes over the launch and recovery zone do you ignite the rocket. And if it never drifts over the right zone, you cut-down and try again. That should make the FAA feel better. Additionally, you would cut-down if various altitude or attitude goals are not met.

You will want to the launch the rocket before the balloons burst at 90k. Don't forget that the N 10,000 will burn longer at altitude due to the lack of oxygen and colder temperatures.
Getting "into position" would be a guestimate at best! There is no way of controlling where the jet stream will take it at 80+ knots.

It would probably cost you about the same when all is said and done, no matter which way you do it.


JD

New Ocean said:

Yes it has been done before, first by professionals, culminating in Project Farside:

https://highpowerrocketry.blogspot.com/2009/01/project-farside.html

A few amateur teams have done it also, but it is very hard to launch a rocket from a balloon for several reasons. It is hard to get FAA approval, hard to wait 30 minutes or more for the balloon to get in position, and hard to know where it will be by then! The rocket needs to survive a long soak at very low temperatures and still launch. At high altitudes, the air is very thin so aerodynamic stability is hard to attain. (One need bigger fins, higher thrust, or canted fins, or a rotating launch tower to help.)

All this aside, I still consider an N motor launched from 90,000 feet to be one of the least expensive ways for someone in the hobby to launch a small payload, including camera, to space. I like the N10,000 because it will quickly get up to speed, but worry about the lack of total impulse. Also consider an N5800. It should be in the lightest possible rocket (every gram shaved off the total mass will greatly increase altitude.)

If you can get an N 5800 to mach 4 at 100,000 feet, that should be enough for space.

Click to expand...