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.
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.
Wonder if something like this might be useful. Getting it to deploy properly without damage might be an issue. :) It's also rather rocket size limited, MPR and low HPR only. Cheap though.:

https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=30801

Parashoot.jpg
 
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 ?

Frankly, low tech? I think that is ridiculous. I also think comparing it to a model rail road is not valid in any way.

Guidance of a rocket can invoke images of a missile, either surface to surface or
Air to air, which we do not want to do. We do not want anybody anywhere thinking that is what we are doing- you want to a crap load of government intervention have them think we are doing that. We need to be clear that we are talking vertical seeking guidance when we talk of this. I think the tech is certainly achievable. Look at what Jim Jarvis is working on.

Part of it is cost. To have an off the shelf product would likely be really pricey. How many folks can afford this. I cannot afford it now for certain. Heck, I would like a Telemega or the big Marsa, much less something like that super cool talking Kate.
 
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.

You had better talk to them. Heck, you are creating a system that could be used to target a ground target. While I understand why I think this might be a lot more trouble from the regulators than it is worth. I think you might want to reconsider even introducing it.
 
Guidance of a rocket can invoke images of a missile, either surface to surface or
Air to air, which we do not want to do. .

I'm not worry; even if you like you probably don't have the knowledge to do it especially with the low tech RC stuf available on the market. Again and Again Gimbale is not guidance, the best motor I can use burn 7 secondes, after that the rocke fly on her own.
 
Last edited:
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.

Will you also be talking to a commericial (you said you are going to sell this thing) insurance agent to find how much a general liability policy will cost you on such a device? Or are you willing to risk your entire net worth for the rest of your life if someone "misuses" this gadget?
 
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

Not true. The following research and presentation was done by a 13 year old NAR member who is on the US Space Modeling Team.

[YOUTUBE]A4M9Uso9EsY[/YOUTUBE]
 
Not true. The following research and presentation was done by a 13 year old NAR member who is on the US Space Modeling Team.



So if it's not true why you show me evidence that prove my point, between 13:18 - 13:26 we see the sin wave
 
Mark and John, I want to be very clear my system will not be able to used for targeting anything. It will have distinct flight modes with precautions to prevent this in both the software and firmware. On the way up the control logic will have no access to positioning data and will only be able to use the inertial sensors to maintain vertical flight. After apogee the canard servos will be disabled in the firmware, and if possible by independent hardware and the controlled decent portion will be enabled. This mode will have limited access to position data and will not be able to drift past a hardcoded distance from the launch point before it disables steering and renders the system a dumb chute. I plan to put the lockouts in both the control firmware and where possible in hardware. In order for my system to be modified for targeting you would need a level of skill that would allow you to build the system from scratch.

Also I want to note that I am speaking to and taking advisement from the state department and the department of homeland security for this project to avoid any issues.
 
Last edited:
Mark and John,.....

Please don't include me in the list of "paranoid by lack of knowledge» peoples, I have 0 issues with what you are doing. It’s as been prove in history that many peoples was afraid of what they don’t understand and give divinity to some of them. Remember, at a time, the earth was flat; everyone who will travel in the ocean will fall in the abyss at the end.

Edit, lol, you was talking about Mark Koelsch, well at least this time is not talking about taking down Air Force one, but a ground target....may be the White House..... peoples listen too much movies.
 
Last edited:
I have no issue with anyone, I was simply replying to the two people who assessed me directly. But I want to distinguish that I am taking this very seriously in advance of any potential issues.
 
Also I want to note that I am speaking to and taking advisement from the state department and the department of homeland security for this project to avoid any issues.

Well it seems like you thought of everything. Let us know how those interactions with the Feds go. Curious.
 
I have decided I need to keep a very careful record from this point forward, partially due to this thread, of all of my interactions with the various regulatory agencies so that everything is transparent and hopefully it will help others as well. I want to add one more clarification as well, and I feel this is important for everyone to hear.

I said I am taking this very seriously. It is precisely because I do not want to damage this hobby in anyway that I will be taking extra care to cross my t's and dot my i's and stay on the right side of the regulators. My goal is to advance this hobby by bringing more tech to the field. There will be a lot of tape for me to get through and a lot of preconceived ideas to overcome, but I will wade through it carefully and keep everything as transparent as possible.
 
Again I do not see an issue but I applaud you for the detail in your proceeding.

The reason that I do not see an issue is:
1. Active stabilization is not breaking new ground in rocketry. JimJarvis's project is the latest that is showing great progress and looks like it will yield technology that will be shared with the rocketry community. Before that Bob Krech has shown a project using hobby gear and I believe that there was an Italian rocketeer (Nerull?) who demonstrated the same thing with tech along the lines your are proposing.

2. Guided recovery. Steerable parachutes. Again work has been done in this area but there appears to be a dearth of a proven open-source solution. Perhaps yours will fill this void. But I do not see this as a technological "moon shot". I thinks there are such solutions in the RC space already. As long as we are not talking about guided "ballistic" recovery there should be no issues.

With cheap reasonable accurate IMU chips now the "guidance" technology is already out-of-bag. You won't be enabling anything that is not already available to reasonably educated tech people.

Edit: Brian, I would just go ahead and develop the tech and keep the constant posts about it to a minimum. There will be challanges. Once you are successful and close to a solution, then you can post, demonstrate and discuss. Otherwise it just may just come across as self-promotion, which I am sure it isn't.... (My free advice, worth about what you paid for it :) ).
 
Last edited:
. It is precisely because I do not want to damage this hobby in anyway that I will be taking extra care to cross my t's and dot my i's

Brian, respectfully..

It is my opinion that talking to the government and educating bureaucrats on how our hobby rockets can potentially be weaponized is the most direct path to damaging our hobby. Just because you are considering providing lockouts (addition) tells the government that our hobby can be a threat in the future with someone not as responsible as you. The government will believe if this is possible within YOUR capabilities is is possible with many thousands of others.

My advice is stop talking to the feds and just develop your toy....

Regards,
John

Edit: PS. In your detail of crossing and dotting t's and i's have you consulted with and NAR or TRA BOD for counsel on how to best communicate with the gov't or at least advised them that you are doing so?
 
Last edited:
Brian, respectfully..

It is my opinion that talking to the government and educating bureaucrats on how our hobby rockets can potentially be weaponized is the most direct path to damaging our hobby. Just because you are considering providing lockouts (addition) tells the government that our hobby can be a threat in the future with someone not as responsible as you. The government will believe if this is possible within YOUR capabilities is is possible with many thousands of others.

For a very different reason, I also suggest that there's no reason to involve any government agencies. I that doubt anyone in the government will even bother to talk to him. After all, what he's developing has been in use in R/C aircraft for a while (and, we've seen a 13-year girl demonstrate the technology in rockets).

DARPA, NASA, and other government agencies have sponsored contests and other events encouraging students and others to experiment with rocketry technology.

-- Roger
 
For a very different reason, I also suggest that there's no reason to involve any government agencies. I that doubt anyone in the government will even bother to talk to him. After all, what he's developing has been in use in R/C aircraft for a while (and, we've seen a 13-year girl demonstrate the technology in rockets).

DARPA, NASA, and other government agencies have sponsored contests and other events encouraging students and others to experiment with rocketry technology.

-- Roger

While I understand this opinion I do not believe the government cares that similar technology is out there for UAVs, when applied to rockets in conjunction with positional awareness of GPS it can be interpreted to be on the USML and I don’t want to find out later that they do in fact care. Also, if this becomes a commercial product as I hope it does it will most definitely be restricted from shipping to certain countries without approval or licensing and I want to make sure I don’t end up on the wrong side of the regulations.

For reference:
https://www.micropilot.com/pdf/uav-export-controls.pdf
https://www.micropilot.com/pdf/itar-export-control-laws.pdf


The section about exporting information explains my concerns about discussions on these forums.

You might want to get in touch with Graham Sortino about his experiences with the State Department, if you plan to pursue this approach.
https://www.freelists.org/post/arocket/More-Open-Source-Stuff

Reinhard

I will do exactly that, thank you very much.
 
is this a joke or what ???

“A*Washington*grand*jury*indicted*Harold*Hanson,*a*former*Army*lieutenant*colonel,*and*his*wife,*
Yaming*Nina*Qi*Hanson,* for*conspiracy*and*violating*export*laws.*Authorities*allege*that*the*Silver*
Spring,* Md.,* couple* exported* miniature* controls* for* unmanned* aircraft.* The* controls* involve*
technology*that*cannot*be*shared*with*China*because*of*national*security*concerns.”

No worry the Chiness don't need toy technology

To*summarize,*if*the*UAV related*goods*you*want*to*export*were*not*originally*designed*for*military*
use*and*are*not*useable*by*UAVs*with*a*range*greater*than*300km*then*they*will*likely*be*controlled*
by* the* dual* use* list.* If* the* UAV* related* goods* you* want* to* export* were* originally* designed* for*
military*use*but*are*not*useable*by*UAVs*with*a*range*greater*than*300km*then*they*will*be*likely*

300km for people who have not evolve to metric system it's 990000 feet, I don't know in US but here in Canada no one will do jail time to build a toy rocket, they make some rules for UAV recently , as long as I launch my stuf in a farm field I'm more than ok.

I have a question ; " do you realize that peoples on this forum are capable only to build toy stuff, not military ones. ? We make often joke, but how many here are Rocket scientific or Northrop Grumman engineer



Transport Canada expects you to follow these basic Do’s and Don’ts.

Do
Only fly your aircraft during daylight and in good weather (not in clouds or fog).

Always keep your aircraft in sight, where you can see it with your own eyes – not only through an on-board camera, monitor or smartphone.

Make sure your aircraft is safe for flight before take-off. Ask yourself, for example, are the batteries fully charged? Is it too cold to fly?

Know if you need permission to fly and when to apply for a Special Flight Operations Certificate

Respect the privacy of others – avoid flying over private property or taking photos or videos without permission.

Don’t fly:
Closer than 9 km from any airport, heliport, or aerodrome.

Higher than 90 metres from above the ground.

Closer than 150 metres from people, animals, buildings, structures, or vehicles.

In populated areas or near large groups of people, including sporting events, concerts, festivals, and firework shows.

Near moving vehicles, avoid highways, bridges, busy streets or anywhere you could endanger or distract drivers.

Within restricted airspace, including near or over military bases, prisons, and forest fires.

Anywhere you may interfere with first responders

Use this infographic to help you understand the Dos and Don’ts of flying safely:
 
Last edited:
Firstly, rockets don't have these wonderful range exceptions granted to UAVs. Second the use of any of this stuff is legal in the US, shipping it or sending information about it outside the US can be illegal.
 
I have a question ; " do you realize that peoples on this forum are capable only to build toy stuff, not military ones. ? We make often joke, but how many here are Rocket scientific or Northrop Grumman engineer

I guess the various engineers and scientists here should be offended, but your histrionics over the past few days just indicates you have little or no idea who we are.
 
.... you have little or no idea who we are.


You are an IT, , it's not what I call scientific. Seriously, you mark my point; launching paper rocket don't make peoples Von Brown or Goddard.
 
Last edited:
Hey jackass

Do you know what the rest of my career was? I do this to relax - not put up with horses asses who do nothing more than gripe and moan about what others do without contributing anything useful. I would be curious as to the blinding level of aerospace experience you bring to your toy choo-choos.


Sheesh, I smell the distinct odor of troll. Thankfully you asked to take your toys and go back to wherever you came from.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Congrats Area66 you got one of the nicest people on the forum to call you a jackass. Quite an accomplishment - not a good one mind you.

To reiterate what Al said, how about you show us your dazzling projects and tell us what subjects your multiple phd's are in?

Gotta go...I have a grease pit to prepare with a road flare.

-Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top