Why such low tech in rocketry ?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Area66

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
4
What we need to see rocketry evolve to a higher standard of technology; 70 years ago the German was targeting London from France with V1 and V2 and in 2015 we can’t even have active stabilisation in rocketry????? We need to walk kilometer to retrieve our rockets. We see recently a big improvement in electronic tracking device especially with GPS. The rest is so primitive. As example in Model railroading we have decoder the size of a 500mg penicillin tablets, controlling speed, functions, bidirectional communication, transponding true the rail and also sound. So why are we stock with passive stabilisation ?
 
What we need to see rocketry evolve to a higher standard of technology; 70 years ago the German was targeting London from France with V1 and V2 and in 2015 we can’t even have active stabilisation in rocketry????? We need to walk kilometer to retrieve our rockets. We see recently a big improvement in electronic tracking device especially with GPS. The rest is so primitive. As example in Model railroading we have decoder the size of a 500mg penicillin tablets, controlling speed, functions, bidirectional communication, transponding true the rail and also sound. So why are we stock with passive stabilisation ?
Because it blurs the line between what we do and making missiles which can be weaponized. Think we got our governments up our collective butts? Go ahead and create something Johnny Martyr can use to shoot down a airliner. I for one, am glad to see that we're not trying to do this. Rocketry needs to be under the radar, not replacing drones as public threat number one.
 
Forgetting everything about missiles and keeping under the government radar, I'd say a more practical and compelling argument against active control is cost and weight. Model rocketry goes up to G motor class, and even a G motor can't lift all that much weight. And for an active guidance system, you'd need a contoller (you might be able to do it with an Arduino, but I don't know if it has the computing power to do the job), sensors and the active control system. That all adds up, and only adds to the weight of the rocket and motor. Not really feasible in anything that isn't a decent sized high power rocket (it's an "ecomomy of scale" thing).

Second is cost - all that extra hardware is going to add enormously to an already very expensive high power rocket, when passive control (ie fins) works just fine and doesn't add anything to the costs.

Third, you need to consider that none of the hardware and software is "out of the box". That means designing the system, putting it together from scratch and doing the programming yourself. And I can pretty much guarantee that it won't work the first time out of the box, and while a passive control failure can be spectacular (skywriting, land shacking and lawn darts with an H or higher can be really scary), an active control system failure would be just as bad and pretty much a given. And, harking back to point 2, each failure is likely to destroy your hardware completely, so that just adds to the cost.

Finally, there is the time factor. You could spend years developing such a system with only a handfull of launches. Meanwhile those of us flying standard passively controlled rockets have probably gotten in hundreds of flights, all still exciting and fun.

And it isn't like the state of rocketry hasn't progressed since its inception - there have been lots of developments since or hobby's pioneers launched and recovered their first 3FN model - we have boost gliders, rocket gliders, rcrg, helicopter, superrocs and electronic payloads, just to name a few. And as far as the big boys go, electronics development has given us smaller and more practical dual deploy altimeters, live streaming video and gps tracking systems. Active control HAS been tried (I believe there was a NAR R&D project on this and I remember reading an article written for the NAR magazine about that project) - it just is too expensive and time consuming to be practical.

Me? I'm perfectly happy launching six or eight low power flights at any give launch at only a few dollars per flight. But that is what works for me, and if you want to experiment with active control, go right ahead. The key to any hobby is doing what makes you happy and keeps you interested.
 
What we need to see rocketry evolve to a higher standard of technology; 70 years ago the German was targeting London from France with V1 and V2 and in 2015 we can’t even have active stabilisation in rocketry????? We need to walk kilometer to retrieve our rockets. We see recently a big improvement in electronic tracking device especially with GPS. The rest is so primitive. As example in Model railroading we have decoder the size of a 500mg penicillin tablets, controlling speed, functions, bidirectional communication, transponding true the rail and also sound. So why are we stock with passive stabilisation ?

My idea of expanding technology AND keeping under the radar would be:

1) More AFFORDABLE dataloggers, like Perfectflite building a logger that logs more data and the software to translate: G forces, acceleration, and much more
2) Add on for transmitting data back to a laptop or radio to record like the RDAS system I once saw.
3) Blue tooth "key chain camera" that could display the flight data in real time it gets from the blue tooth logger so when you play the video, it's in there.
4) Blue tooth logger period so I can grab the data during the day instead of waiting until I get home and open the av-bay.
I have a universal av-bay that can make several flights without opening it. I gues I could extend the data port to one of the end caps but it could get burned .
 
It would be more interesting to control the way down than the way up, at least regarding walking. It is common now to use electronics to get it down faster.

The latest issue of NAR Rocketry magazine is almost all electronics in rocketry, and I don't recall anything about active guidance.
 
I am working on guided descent, with the aim of a commercial system, but it will be a very long development. Probably a few years.
 
Put wings on it and fly it back RC. Bad hip so thats what I do and telemetry can give me GPS, altitude, speed, and on top of that multicopters have a return to home capability which can be adapted to rocket gliders. Warning on that last one as it leaves active stabilization and enters guided missle territory so I won't go there. Unfortunetly some @#^&! eventually will and ruin it for all.


Richard
 
My idea of expanding technology AND keeping under the radar would be:

1) More AFFORDABLE dataloggers, like Perfectflite building a logger that logs more data and the software to translate: G forces, acceleration, and much more
2) Add on for transmitting data back to a laptop or radio to record like the RDAS system I once saw.
3) Blue tooth "key chain camera" that could display the flight data in real time it gets from the blue tooth logger so when you play the video, it's in there.
4) Blue tooth logger period so I can grab the data during the day instead of waiting until I get home and open the av-bay.
I have a universal av-bay that can make several flights without opening it. I gues I could extend the data port to one of the end caps but it could get burned .

^ This...

I think the key point is to make the hobby cheap and affordable, so kids or first-timers aren't too intimidated, but then also make it cheap to collect data like this, to show people there is a lot of tech that can be used in rocketry....but you don't have to go that way to just have a fun afternoon out.

We are almost there, there are plenty of nifty electronics out there in the $50-$100 range that will (hopefully) be in the $20-$50 range (and lower, in kit form) in a couple of years.
 
Forgetting everything about missiles and keeping under the government radar, I'd say a more practical and compelling argument against active control is cost and weight. Model rocketry goes up to G motor class, and even a G motor can't lift all that much weight. And for an active guidance system, you'd need a contoller (you might be able to do it with an Arduino, but I don't know if it has the computing power to do the job), sensors and the active control system. That all adds up, and only adds to the weight of the rocket and motor. Not really feasible in anything that isn't a decent sized high power rocket (it's an "ecomomy of scale" thing).

Second is cost - all that extra hardware is going to add enormously to an already very expensive high power rocket, when passive control (ie fins) works just fine and doesn't add anything to the costs.

Third, you need to consider that none of the hardware and software is "out of the box". That means designing the system, putting it together from scratch and doing the programming yourself. And I can pretty much guarantee that it won't work the first time out of the box, and while a passive control failure can be spectacular (skywriting, land shacking and lawn darts with an H or higher can be really scary), an active control system failure would be just as bad and pretty much a given. And, harking back to point 2, each failure is likely to destroy your hardware completely, so that just adds to the cost.

Finally, there is the time factor. You could spend years developing such a system with only a handfull of launches. Meanwhile those of us flying standard passively controlled rockets have probably gotten in hundreds of flights, all still exciting and fun.

And it isn't like the state of rocketry hasn't progressed since its inception - there have been lots of developments since or hobby's pioneers launched and recovered their first 3FN model - we have boost gliders, rocket gliders, rcrg, helicopter, superrocs and electronic payloads, just to name a few. And as far as the big boys go, electronics development has given us smaller and more practical dual deploy altimeters, live streaming video and gps tracking systems. Active control HAS been tried (I believe there was a NAR R&D project on this and I remember reading an article written for the NAR magazine about that project) - it just is too expensive and time consuming to be practical.

Me? I'm perfectly happy launching six or eight low power flights at any give launch at only a few dollars per flight. But that is what works for me, and if you want to experiment with active control, go right ahead. The key to any hobby is doing what makes you happy and keeps you interested.

You can use a cluster of 2 G motors and still be under the limit.
Just thought I'de point that out.
 
Because it blurs the line between what we do and making missiles which can be weaponized.

What kind of _______ reply is that ? , you can't even predict where your rocket will land in the field, so as to use it for shoot down something, they are a huge gap ( like the Colorado canyon ) to fill not a line. Let's keep it simple, glue the fins, put a motor, launch ......and hit cars in the back of the launch line. May be we should stop to develop turnout ( switch ) control on our train layout , someone can use it to derail a passenger train .....

Seriously, you need speed to hit a plane, me I want to actually lower the speed of a rocket to enjoy more the launch, if with active stabilisation we can launch a rocket with only 1.5 Trust/weight ration instead of 4 or 5 , we will actually launch rocket the way we use to see with the Apollo missions.


Here we go some place. I go read it from A to Z
 
Last edited:
It all depends on the person and their goals.

Some are working on evolutionary projects, and some are amazing and stretching possibilities. Others want to make nice scale replicas. There is joy to be found in all of it.
 
It's cost and weight.


And...if you don't like something.... Build something better.
 
Cost $300 to $500 for launch a M motor and nothing left after, this is not money ?
 
Cost $300 to $500 for launch a M motor and nothing left after, this is not money ?

Let's see I have

- The telemetry data
- Flight computer data
- On board video

Works for me.

You claim to need engineering skills (and a host of other talents) to build out a model railroad layout. Cool, divert some of those clock cycles to the design of an affordable and lightweight stabilization system. Demonstrate it works and I'll be in line to buy one.

And for the record, Rick's comment on legality is very very valid. There are very specific rules and regulations about how much guidance you are allowed to put in a rocket before it is deemed a weapon.
 
Last edited:
There are very specific rules and regulations about how much guidance you are allowed to put in a rocket before it is deemed a weapon.

Give me a link, cause I don't beleive everything said on forum......
 
27CFR Chapter II to start.

Then take a good read into ITAR (applies as you are across an international border).

Then Part 99 of 15CFR (if I recall that one correctly) - Look under ECCL.

Find your own links to those. It's a few hundred pages of reading.
 
It depends which country your talking about.in the development of my flight computer I will be talking with the US state department and homeland security just to be safe, especially with selling my system and where I can legally ship it. But the US laws specifically exclude anything that is not intended to be weaponized or has been deweaponized. The strictest laws in this respect in the US have to do with not shipping components that can be used to make a weapon to certain countries.
 
Cost $300 to $500 for launch a M motor and nothing left after, this is not money ?

If you're putting up a rocket with that much value in it in an area that can't support its recovery, can you really blame the rocket?

I know of an attempt made to put a GPS-driven steering system into the recovery portion of the flight. The few times it was flown it demonstrated good intent but some of the weak links in the physical system showed themselves. If the fellow who has worked on this keeps after it, maybe something will come of it.

Active stabilization for the up part of the flight would only be practical on rockets that could carry the extra weight such as Level 3 rockets. If you're flying those, you should be able to have some idea of where its going to go in the sky and how to put it where you want it. Once the chute comes out, you're more at the mercy of nature.
 
But the US laws specifically exclude anything that is not intended to be weaponized or has been deweaponized.

Quoted for emphasis.

There is no law that prevents us from using technology such as active stabilty. The model aircraft community is already using some sophisticated flight computers and has been using active guidance for decades.

-- Roger
 
If you're putting up a rocket with that much value in it in an area that can't support its recovery, can you really blame the rocket?

I know of an attempt made to put a GPS-driven steering system into the recovery portion of the flight. The few times it was flown it demonstrated good intent but some of the weak links in the physical system showed themselves. If the fellow who has worked on this keeps after it, maybe something will come of it.

Active stabilization for the up part of the flight would only be practical on rockets that could carry the extra weight such as Level 3 rockets. If you're flying those, you should be able to have some idea of where its going to go in the sky and how to put it where you want it. Once the chute comes out, you're more at the mercy of nature.

Active stabilization for the "up part of the flight" has already been done on L1/L2 Sized rockets.
 
And rather that active guidance by fin there's always gimbaling the motor... George Gassaway has done that.
 
And rather that active guidance by fin there's always gimbaling the motor... George Gassaway has done that.

Exactly, Gimbal can't be view as missile guidance, anyway those attempt to stabilize the rocket with canards and guardian/servo combination will fail especially if the travel of the fins is 45 degrees. The canards on missile are controlled by heat seeker. For gimbal we have first to design a pivot for the base of the motor and use cam on the top of the motor tube to angle the motor


something lighter than this attach betwen the trust plate and the motor tube , 3D printers guy we need you

ball%20joint%20_zpsuo1otn0p.jpg



*** I ear already the voices ; " this will control the rocket only under motor trust" I know, what I'm looking for is to reduce the speed of the rocket at launch. real slow launch ( really the oposite of someone who look to target a plane )



[video=youtube;emqMhQcG3ho]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emqMhQcG3ho&list=PLjF4X7fGc3lbmu-IE_ijm4TeXK2kQp4D2[/video]
 
Last edited:
One of the problems of Canards and Guardian is the lack of processing power to anticipate the amount of correction needed to not over correct and create more problems. With Gimbal it will be the same problem except if we use a cluster of fix motors to surround the gimbal one. It will create some sort of inertia.

cluster_zpsmklxtghx.jpg
 
I fly Lo Tech rockets. I have a lot of fun with that. What's your point? Flying HI Tech doesn't define this hobby, it's just another avenue.
 
I fly Lo Tech rockets. I have a lot of fun with that. What's your point? Flying HI Tech doesn't define this hobby, it's just another avenue.

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 .....
 
Last edited:
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 .....

To each his own. Simple.

I'd like to add, that designing and constructing/building said rockets, covers 3/4 of what I like about this hobby. I'm not your average 3FNC builder.
I've seen the HPR flyers in full tilt boogy. They wrap rockets around the motors they fly. I'm not into that. I build designs I created. I have options that HI Tech flyers don't. I'm very happy knowing I can still be creative with my designs. And not limited with crafting skills.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top