Why such low tech in rocketry ?

Area66 said:

My point is that I find it very boring to just launch plain low tech rocket. Always the same patern, glue the fins put a motor and launch .....

Click to expand...

Maybe you're not doing it right?

I've recently flown a 12-foot long rocket that used a "wacky wiggler" mode of recovery and a six-foot tall, eight-legged, furry arachnid. And it's not just size that matters. I had never launched a raw egg as a payload until a few years ago. I felt the same kind of excitement I had experienced as a kid as I recovered the rocket and opened the payload bay to find the egg intact.

I've been building and flying rockets for about half of my 50+ years and I've never felt it getting boring or routine. I have never suffered a period of "burn out" from rocketry as I have periodically from computers and most everything else in my life. There are always new challenges and no one is telling me what to do. I make my own designs, follow my own plans, and work on my own schedule.

Sometimes I feel that rocketry is the only thing keeping me sane (then my wife gives me a dope slap).

-- Roger

I'm fairly new to Model rocketry and having several other hobbies, race cars, rc cars, blah blah I find building and launching a blast, but I do think it is kinda like drag racing - over in 10 seconds. But it's what happens in that 10 seconds. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what is fun or boring, and I say if you think rocket is low tech or boring then maybe your on the edge of creating the high tech on rocketry. I happen to by satisfied with the "low tech" version but I do like learning. Heck I can't even get my RRC3 dongle to work so plenty high tech for me and I'm not even scratching the surface. But that's me.

I say whatever floats ur boat, people might get offended by you implying rocketeers are low tech as well - don't want to put words in your mouth - but people are easily offended, I don't care, I can fart in public.

So I like the question - that's what a scientist does is question and learn .
Maybe you can come up with something high tech if your wallet allows.

I think rockets are more of a craftsman thing rather than high or low tech. Let TRF know what you cone up with - we like pics and videos!

My wife told me a saying... I'm probably butchering it but the concept ...
Small people talk about other people
Average people talk about things
Great people talk about ideas

Maybe its just me but I get nervous about proliferating "active stabilization" at our launches. Are we talking about putting active stabilization on rockets that are normally not stable? If so that is not a launch I would want to attend if there were alot of those going up.

If it augmenting vertical flight of all ready stable rockets, ok I can see that for projects like Jim Jarvis staged rockets at BR. But for routine launches to modest alitudes? I'd like to see the DFMEA on those and what the accident rate would be per 1000 launches of such systems.

Regards,
The Party Pooper

Area66 said:

My point is that I find it very boring to just launch plain low tech rocket. Always the same patern, glue the fins put a motor and launch .....

Click to expand...

Okay...this is where you are completely and utterly wrong and missing the point some folks are trying to get you to understand. I'm not going to be as nice as others...Try to keep up here...

I will fly low tech because that's what makes ME happy. THAT's where I want to spend my money. I couldn't give two ****'s what someone like you thinks of that. It's my hobby, it's how I relax and unwind without it becoming a giant engineering project (which I have no interest in) that sucks up large quantities of cash (something else I am not interested in.)

If you would like to make some hi-tech wonder that goes where you want it to with lots of computers, servos, guidance systems onboard...knock yourself out. While I find projects like that really interesting I have no interest in creating my own.

Plus I am getting the vibe here that you are clearly missing one very key element to rocketry here. That's the social part. I went to a launch yesterday and flew two rockets and spent the rest of the time just chewing the fat with folks I haven't seen in a while. That was also fun.

Do you get it now or do I need to go over this again?

I know I sound a bit harsh but it is insulting when someone tries to tell me "YOUR WAY OF ROCKETRY IS BORING DO IT MY WAY." If I am within the safety rules I will rocket however I want.

I will probably never build a fiberglass or fiberglassed rocket, no automobile level multi-coat paint jobs, no tracking computer, nothing like that. I just know the ultimate doom of most rockets....

It's fun. It's science. It's art. It's playing around with bits of wood and paper and creating something. There's a lot to like in this hobby as it is.

DAllen said:

...Try to keep up here....

Click to expand...

Keep up ? it's my tread so may be you can't keep up with it or just ignore it....... and since you are a smart guy...what is different of what you are doing and what Chinese was doing 700 hundreds years ago? I don't say to peoples what to do, I say it low tech in many aspect of it. What you want I say, I woke up the other day and realize it was very basic to glue fins on a tube, it's the way I see it, I can't change it. I need some motivation to try others things. If you don't good for you.

I will edit your post to reflect what I think "OUR WAY OF ROCKETRY IS BORING I WANT TO TRY ANOTHER WAY." and mostly I want slow liffoff like real rocket

Area66 said:

I woke up the other day and realize it was very basic to glue fins on a tube, it's the way I see it, I can't change it. I need some motivation to try others things. If you don't good for you.

Click to expand...

Then come up with a personal mission or goal. You start out saying the hobby is too low tech. Low tech for what?

If you pine for some gratuitous technology to put on the rocket for technology's sake, then the sky's limit I suppose. Tech fills a need..
1. Basic altimeters answered the need to control recovery distances.
2. Recording altimeters then evolved to give flight data to the masses.
3. GPS telemetry was then made economical to satisfy more recovery needs.
4. IMU's became available to address the need to stage ignitions at safe rocketry attitude.
5. Vertical steering is now being developed to effect safe rocket attitudes for staging.

What are the unaddressed needs that technology may satisfy? Tech too low is not a need.....

Thanks John, finally something we can work on it ; for me I like to see 4 things ( I have many others but let's start with 4 )

1- Slower launch like real rocket ( I start a tread on it https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?125115-Gimbal )
2- A good source of wireless launch system ( for now we have to build or own more or less secure system )
3- A way to abort the fly if something happen ( air brake, emergency chute deployment , anything to avoid to see a rocket hit a car of worse someone )
4- Better way to control the decent and the recovery

Big fields start to be hard to find , so if we can have better results where or rockets land, we will be able to use smaller field for higher waiver. For now I have to limit launch at 3000 feet even if the rules and the law alow me to 6000, at 6000 feet rockets go out the field ( not in my field I never let it happen, but in other around it happen )

Area66 said:

My point is that I find it very boring to just launch plain low tech rocket. Always the same patern, glue the fins put a motor and launch .....

Click to expand...

I was not really serious with that reply, in 99% of the time I like to launch a simple rocket, as example dual deployment are more demanding in preparation, I don’t want to make all my fly that way. But sometime I want more… and I found the technology needed to do so is not yet there in some aspect of the hobby. And I don't get what is wrong to have more toy, more options to play with

Area66 said:

I will edit your post to reflect what I think "OUR WAY OF ROCKETRY IS BORING I WANT TO TRY ANOTHER WAY." and mostly I want slow liffoff like real rocket

Click to expand...

Welp...that's not at all how you were coming across.

So if I understand correctly, you want to be able to fly a fin-less rocket, on a long burn cluster of motors, scaled down by a factor of maybe 100 from the prototype.
You would also like to buy the miniature electronic control system off the shelf, for something less that $50, ideally at a model train shop.

Graduator said:

So if I understand correctly, you want to be able to fly a fin-less rocket, on a long burn cluster of motors, scaled down by a factor of maybe 100 from the prototype.
You would also like to buy the miniature electronic control system off the shelf, for something less that $50, ideally at a model train shop.

Click to expand...

Ya you have everything right ....... Scale prototype rockets, not surprise to see you a NAR member. I have a full equipped electronic lab here, and a college degree in electronic, so you can stick the off the shell cheap stuff in your scale rocket if you want. 1:100 that will make a Saturn V 3 feet high, ya you really get it.....

1- Slower launch like real rocket ( I start a tread on it https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthr...?125115-Gimbal )
2- A good source of wireless launch system ( for now we have to build or own more or less secure system )
3- A way to abort the fly if something happen ( air brake, emergency chute deployment , anything to avoid to see a rocket hit a car of worse someone )
4- Better way to control the decent and the recovery

Click to expand...

I can't address 1 and 2, don't have the expertise. 1 may be theoretically doable with a small-ish gyro that forces the rocket to maintain attitude. 3 and 4 actually seem fairly straightforward.

3. If you have a dual deploy system in place, add an extra igniter controlled from the ground. That will allow you to separate the rocket and hopefully deploy the main. That seems fairly reasonable in the current state of the art of rocketry/RC aviation electronics and your stated qualifications.

4. The "easy" way here is a controlled parachute fall. If you're talking about 500-800' on an L2/L3 motor, you're looking at a pretty big airframe. You should be able to put in a small steerable kite for a chute. I've seen a number of these that are basically trainers for people going kiteboarding. With appropriate RC aviation electronics, that should be steerable enough so you can fly the rocket back to the launch site.

Both of these seem to accomplish your goals with FAR less engineering and experimentation intensive than a true guidance system. Implementation and proof is left as an exercise for the student.

By the way, I find plenty of technical challenge in scratch building electronics-free rockets. I expect to add some electronics in the next year or so. I won't tell you what you should fly, you should have the same respect for others.

boatgeek said:

3. If you have a dual deploy system in place, add an extra igniter controlled from the ground. That will allow you to separate the rocket and hopefully deploy the main. .

Click to expand...

WTF I start this tread, nothing constructive come of it ..............

like if I born yesterday........

https://www.missileworks.com/wrc
https://www.apogeerockets.com/Elect...leFire?zenid=000f9407ee5600208843842e406572bd

and google raven and telemetrum they can also open chute under certain circumstances.

boatgeek said:

I won't tell you what you should fly, you should have the same respect for others.

Click to expand...

where in this tread or other you see me telling to other what to fly. I just say if you happy with your low tech good, me I'm not. it's in no way a suggestion, it's fact. About anyone can build a rocket, I want more chalenge. is that hard to understand.

I am getting the feeling there is a translation/e-mail problem here. What the OP is posting comes across as "what you are doing is boring and stupid" and I don't think he means that.

P.S. - if the OP wants to go high tech...

Here you go:

A fully featured UFC3 (which will keep your inner geek happy for years to come) will only set you back about $9,800 and provides both analog and digital downlink, 20FPS GPS, full vertical trajectory stabilization, 3 axis gyro, enough pyro power to jump start your car (6 channels), and enough power for the system to outrun you.

One thing is sure; it’s not worthy to spend time and money to develop thing, not enough customers, or customers not willing to pay the price. Just look at a product like Telemetrum, hundreds of hours of development and only few use it, peoples complain it’s too expensive. The Electronic bay as sold by rockets manufacturers are pain in the … to use. We have some innovation with the one sold by Missile work for the RC2+ and develop by a member here but it’s still limited to 38mm.

H_Rocket said:

I am getting the feeling there is a translation/e-mail problem here. What the OP is posting comes across as "what you are doing is boring and stupid" and I don't think he means that.

.

Click to expand...

I'm sure we can do way more in this hobby than just put a motor and fire it. As I said I like to do it also , but some time I will like to achieve more. If someone look in my post elsewhere, they will see I say it's fun to make a low power with friend without high power rules. That's means I don't find it stupid ... but even there I get the most stupid reply about the risk to kill kids....... in my case we are all adults with all Canadian lev 3 , I guess we can manage to launch estes rocket without flying card

Area66 said:

I'm sure we can do way more in this hobby than just put a motor and fire it.

Click to expand...

Lets see

• I do HPR staging
• I do on board and broadcast video
• I do clusters
• I collect and analyze flight data
• I even have hybrid gear

I want to do air starts - have not gotten around to it.

And yes, very now and then I simply like the thrill of a whoosh-pop. Basic fun to pull off.

I think there is plenty to do above what you claim is the current state. You just need to look harder.

Area66 said:

We have some innovation with the one sold by Missile work for the RC2+ and develop by a member here but it’s still limited to 38mm.

Click to expand...

Look a bit deeper, that same sled is available from 29mm all the way to 98mm. Plus the manufacturer has some intriguing ideas as to av bays, sleds, and the like.

H_Rocket said:

Look a bit deeper, that same sled is available from 29mm all the way to 98mm. Plus the manufacturer has some intriguing ideas as to av bays, sleds, and the like.

Click to expand...

No I'm not talking about the sled, but the 29mm S.M.A.R.T. Sled for RRC2+, my bad from memory I tough it was 38mm

https://www.missileworks.com/store/#!/29mm-S-M-A-R-T-Sled-for-RRC2+/p/39517483/category=9045099

My gps tracker launch drew a crowd yesterday , Too me real cool to explain the NC has GPS radio in it , RX is out by my Car , phone is blue toothed the RX

all in 54mm rocket I'm sure it would stay under weight for Mid Power


I left phone on table for everybody to watch

op:

There must be something lost in translation here. When you gave your list of goals, I thought that you meant that you didn't have the tools to meet those needs. I guess that wasn't the case. I got the same feeling as H_Rocket that the OP thought that anything short of stabilized flight is stupid. So that informed my response.

I agree with you that it won't pay to create a stabilization system. That benefits few enough people that you'll never be in any kind of series production. if you have the tools to make it yourself, you may find a few people who are interested in buying. I am 100% sure that you won't cover expenses, though. Waiting for reasonable weather conditions or building for the field is far preferable to most people to spending thousands on electronics that are at risk of loss in a lawn dart or unplanned swim.

Area66 said:

Cost $300 to $500 for launch a M motor and nothing left after, this is not money ?

Click to expand...

300 to 500 is -nothing- compared to what it would cost to put guidance into a rocket. It would make popping off M motors look like A8-3's

AIM- 120 AMRAAM's cost between 300,000 - 400,000. 120D's at 1.7 million.

Good ol' AGM 54 Pheonix? 477,000.


So no, $500 is not money in this respect.

As others have mentioned.... Get into some serious electronics if you think whoosh pop sucks.

GPS tracking... data from RRC3's is awesome...... I swear my MARSA was designed by aliens....







I don't know about you.... but I find this stuff incredibly cool.

DizWolf said:

I swear my MARSA was designed by aliens....

Click to expand...

Naw, John is too weird to be an alien...

H_Rocket said:

Naw, John is too weird to be an alien...

Click to expand...

Perhaps only abducted and grabbed a couple chips when they were probing

DizWolf said:

As others have mentioned.... Get into some serious electronics if you think whoosh pop sucks.l.

Click to expand...

Start to be anoying; ...... I purchase 2 x Telemetrum last year..... the RCC3 are toy compare to them. As I said I born before yesterday.


https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?65394-Telemetrum-is-the-best

DizWolf said:

300 to 500 is -nothing- compared to what it would cost to put guidance into a rocket.

Click to expand...

I don't want to put guidance and as someone worry in the second reply of this tread; no one will put down Air Force 1 with my system . Stabilisation by gimbale is not guidance


as for the 300 to 500, in the first year I spend $12,000 in the hobby. I budget around $ 20,000 over the next 4 years for my gimbale system, if we look at what a college girl did with few hundreds it's should bring me someplace.

I'm not the typical clown who come here and want to launch a rocket at 10000 feet with liquid engine on his first tread. I have an interesting project, I will be 55 soon, and I know my limits and most important I think I have a dam good idea why other fails, especially with canards, so I will not make the same mistake.

I like your thinking and will be watching intently.

For me, I know there is a "mid tech" opportunity missing with each launch that I do (before I even can think about higher tech). That is, I can (but don't) assess the surface wind and wind aloft properly, along with time under boost and time under chute, and trying to launch at a proper angle that will have the rocket land right back next to the pad. I know Open Rocket can spit out that info for me. But neither I nor many others whom I observe take the time to get the proper launch rod angle. At best, at the pad I try to remember the latest NOAA wind direction and speed, plus use my weak field senses, and throw some guessed angle into the launch rod without ever really putting any kind of quantitative analysis to it. I bet if I did, my walks would be short(er).

I have an Altimeter One and ordered an EggFinder. I would hope before I get any more techy that I at least try to get more quantitative pre-launch to make the least amount of need for my future electronics (i.e., use my NOAA or flight weather app and OpenRocket in the field, use a compass, and an angle finder to set the launch rod).

One could stretch this thinking to say dual deploy may not be needed. But I also know at some point that proper aiming will do less and less good at higher and higher power and altitudes due to variability of atmospheric winds and limitations of prediction software. And maybe most importantly, launch angles may end up being so shallow as to be unsafe (or against rocketry codes of practice).

Buick you bring a very good point and a real problem; they are a lot of guessing and very few science ( if any ) in the way the angle and direction of the rail is determinate , I always check the aviation wind direction at ground, 3000 and 6000 feet, but the wind shift direction between 0 and 3000 and it’s very hard to guess at witch altitude. And it change even if you test with a rocket an hour later it’s not the same. And you have also convection air mouvement ( I hope I get the real therm in English ) that can keep a chute in the air for a long time, I have a lot of this effect in our field, I remember here comments like the rockets is floating in the air.