Project Blacksky 200K two stage - Class 3 submitted!

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Right.... But if I'm using two alternative air-tight methods, why would they act differently? You see where Im getting at? The BP itself will be in the same operating conditions in all three devices.

Okay so Ive received more quotes from Nextline and, we have ourselves a new problem. Nextline was able to quote me a fantastic IST price, but a less than good fin set price. The fins, needing to be 6Al-4v will be quite expensive indeed, but NextLine has me quoted at $1330 PER FIN. ($5320 for the set of four) . This is in addition to the $1770 quote for the fin can sleeve.

I have decided at this point to ditch the thermal methods of joining the fins as it would barely be viable with parts coming from multiple sources. I will just JB weld them together. They will still have dowel pins to lock them in place.

So, with that being said, does anyone know good shops that can not only supply, but MACHINE titanium? Does TitaniumJoe do mill work?

With a $5000 set of fins, the project comes out at $20,000 neatly rounded from its raw subtotal. My original goal was $15,000 or less....
Again, I wont skimp on materials just to cut cost. It will be done right, not cheap. But the higher the cost, the more people would have to contribute to make it achievable, so lowering costs is indeed desirable where possible.
Now... to make that parachute call..

**UPDATED**

Per an email back to NextLine they mentioned this:

" With regards to the fin, for qty 4 you will see a lower piece price from quantity 1, as the material and setup costs begin to be amortized somewhat. I'll also see what I can do on Monday as far as finding a better material source for the titanium sheet. Hopefully we can meet your price needs. "

So I will see where I can go with that.... Lets hope we can maybe make it under $2K for all four... $17,000 is still a bit high, though.

I also just spoke with Ky about parachutes, and he seemed interested in helping me find a chute suitable. We will speak again on Monday and I will know more at that time.

Told you those fins were going to cost an arm and a leg. :wink:

I do not think you are going to find a shop willing to do it for significantly less than what nextline quoted you. I actually think that was a very good price. You have to remember they cant plan to make only one, since it is pretty probable that one or two will be scrap with the complicated geometry. If it were me and I was trying to save money, I'd simplify the shape and cut the bevels with a belt sander myself. perhaps have a shop just cut the basic outline out.

Also if you are just going to jb weld the fins together why use titanium. You are not going to get as many of the benefits over aluminum.

If you are looking for a high speed chute para-tech parachutes makes parachutes for this application. They are not cheap however and I am not completely sure he makes parachutes that small. The parachute I know he made was for something closer to the size of csxt.
https://www.paratech-parachutes.com/
 
I have to agree with the fin cost. Titanium is very expensive stuff, and really tough to machine.

Frankly, if you are going to epoxy it together with jb weld I think you are wasting your time on titanium. Might you consider aluminum fins and weld things together
 
Yeah, Ill have to see what they can wiggle the price down to. Atleast he is willing to work with me somewhat on that, which is cool. These guys seem really cool and fit for the job. JB weld or Cotronics 4525 is just to keep the fin from wiggling its way out of the slot. Remember they are also held in place by a few dowel pins. Combined with what I hope to be a snug fit from the beginning, I dont see how this could be too much of a problem. Again, titanium must be used for the fins so that they may withstand the aerodynamic forces without a lot of tail weight. Steel is too heavy. Aluminum will flutter. Carbon is difficult to pull off because of temps, and more so because of my IST geometries being based on a fincan.
Ive never worked with Titanium before, but Ive heard it can be difficult to machine and manage. I would probably be incompetent to really work on such a precision demanding piece with non CNC tools and a foreign metal to me, which would warrant a tutor or a shop job... which kinda negates that whole point eh? :) Belt sanding bevels on a mach 4+ rocket is asking for trouble. Lift would be so easy to accidentally make, and it could maybe even cause the rocket to spin out in a worst case scenario. Drag losses in best.
Cool! I will check out Paratech later today and see what they have to offer. The biggest complication with my drogue chute will be size/packing volume. Due to the harsh operating environments, I would want to use a chute sewn from Kevlar or even Nomex (to avoid fireproofing layerage). 1.9oz ripstop would be durable enough but it packs thick and then I have to put another fire-proof layer over it to boot...
remember, given the fact that ive already got a main chute reefed, some cord, and atleast two pyro devices in the CONSTRICTING HALF of a 75mm nosecone.... one could assume I dont have much more than about the size of racquetball to pack it in... maybe smaller..
There's also just no way Im going to be doing more than an 8" drogue after seeing what happens to folks (myself included) who pop big drogues on light rockets. They drift a bit. Especially when you subject them to the high altitude jet streams.
 
Titanium is a bitch to machine from what I understand. See the history of Lockheed's creation of the SR-71 and the issues they had in figuring out how to form and machine titanium.

I have wondered about having a core of something like aluminum or carbon with ceramic ablative layer. Probably be messy from the different expansions rates though.
 
The "amateur" GoFast rocket exceeded Mach 5, and apogeed over 100 km with aluminum fins, and the commercial sounding rocket derived from it.

References:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?125609-2004-CSXT-GoFast-Flight-Data
https://www.upaerospace.com/

You are not designing a SR-71 class aircraft that cruises at Mach 3+. You are, or should be, designing a rocket that operates under high heat load (Mach 3+) for at most 10 seconds, and at high altitude. This heat load is simply not that high. Titanium fins are unnecessary, weigh more than aluminum, and are at least 10 times more expensive.

I suggest you download and read the original DoD technical reports on the Arcas and the Loki sounding rocket which represents 2 extremely different approaches to getting ~4" rockets to over 300 kft, well above your target, and actually see what construction methods worked.

This approach costs nothing but your time...........so it is extremely cost effective.

Bob
 
Again, titanium must be used for the fins so that they may withstand the aerodynamic forces without a lot of tail weight. Steel is too heavy. Aluminum will flutter. Carbon is difficult to pull off because of temps, and more so because of my IST geometries being based on a fincan.
If your calculations are showing that a welded Aluminum fin is not going to cut it because of flutter then gluing a pair of titanium fins on definitely is not going to do any better.
 
Loki with a light weight dart is well over Mach 5, fins are aluminum-with square edges.

M

Not true. (or partially true?) They are steel. Per original documentation.

Screen Shot 2015-06-13 at 12.42.56 PM.png

They are also MUCH smaller in semi-span. This is a critical value when it comes to flutter.

Screen Shot 2015-06-13 at 12.36.34 PM.jpg

Being that they are so small, they could get away with the heavy weight of steel. My rocket see's some pretty poor traits from having that much weight in the back.


The "amateur" GoFast rocket exceeded Mach 5, and apogeed over 100 km with aluminum fins, and the commercial sounding rocket derived from it.

References:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?125609-2004-CSXT-GoFast-Flight-Data
https://www.upaerospace.com/

You are not designing a SR-71 class aircraft that cruises at Mach 3+. You are, or should be, designing a rocket that operates under high heat load (Mach 3+) for at most 10 seconds, and at high altitude. This heat load is simply not that high. Titanium fins are unnecessary, weigh more than aluminum, and are at least 10 times more expensive.

I suggest you download and read the original DoD technical reports on the Arcas and the Loki sounding rocket which represents 2 extremely different approaches to getting ~4" rockets to over 300 kft, well above your target, and actually see what construction methods worked.

This approach costs nothing but your time...........so it is extremely cost effective.

Bob

Im not positive, but I would guess that the GoFast rocket used fins MUCH thicker than .125". To save tailweight and aid aerodynamics I had chosen to use a relatively thin profile, which detracts from stiffness. As to exactly which fin construction techniques you are referring to, Im interested but not familiar. I will look into the Arcas report again today, but from what I could tell the Loki Darts had steel fins.


If your calculations are showing that a welded Aluminum fin is not going to cut it because of flutter then gluing a pair of titanium fins on definitely is not going to do any better.

Where are you basing this from? From what I understood, Titanium has a much higher modulus of elasticity than aluminum, so therefore wouldn't it resist far greater aerodynamic loading without deforming? The question in my mind is how hot they will get....

metal-modulus-elasticity.png
 
Last edited:
Booster fins.
I have a couple darts and a Loki case.
The Viper 3A booster fins are steel , with square leading edges. I have one of these cases too.

M

Added... I found the Loki booster case, fins are aluminum 0.045" thick, span 1.068".
The dart is made entirely of steel, magnetic. LE of dart fins are square. 0.072 thick with paint. Weighs 10.16 lbs, made in 1962 by Marquardt
 
Last edited:
Booster fins.
I have a couple darts and a Loki case.
The Viper 3A booster fins are steel , with square leading edges. I have one of these cases too.

M

But.... this doccumentation here clearly states the DART fins are steel. Atleast on the SuperLoki Robin Dart.

Screen Shot 2015-06-13 at 12.42.56 PM.png

This is screen captured from original SuperLoki dart system vehicle development documentation. See sec 4.3 Dart specifics - page 24.
https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/750796.pdf

Regardless. Even if im wrong, or you have another type of dart Im unfamiliar with, they are really small span. I could get away with aluminum too if my span could be that small.
 
Im surprised the booster fins are aluminum. I did indeed find documentation to support that, theyre 2014-T6 . Shocking if you ask me. But again, spin stabilized rockets have tiny fins with tiny spans, so thats probably they key that let them in the aluminum door.
Its worth mentioning that I have managed to find a "reasonable" design with steel fins in OR. Per the standard weights in the program, OR thinks a set of .100" thick fins with a .25" span increase (now 3.75") would be sufficient to keep the rocket atleast 1.00 body cal stable at high mach. The problem is, my father has gone on a trip with my only PC laptop in the house, and I will not have access to finSim for a good bit of time to test them out. I might try getting ahold of him to speed this process.... But I am predicting that since they are thinner (one tenth as opposed to one eighth inch) they will hit divergence speed.
The amazingly high E of steel might prove otherwise... wont know untill I run it through finsim. For now, the design remains 6Al-4V.
Thoughts appreciated!
 
Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that this project would be considerably cheaper if you can get some EX guys excited enough to take part.

I don't have exact numbers, but as a general rule, APCP is cheaper in terms of raw materials costs than titanium. I know shipping of motors above O class is exhorbitantly expensive. However, if you could cast propellant on-site, you could counter the performance loss of steel or aluminum fins with an increase in total impulse. I bet the extra propellant mass costs a lot less than the cost differential for Ti parts.
 
Tripoli's new policy on metal in rockets would require approval of metals other than aluminum alloy and copper alloy.
He would need to show reason Al alloy would not work and Ti is needed. The Class 3 Committee members are very unlikely to fall for B.S.

M
 
Rough room.

Well, you know....
I want to fly high
But I can't afford it

So, can you pay for me to fly high?

Really??? I want a Ferrari Super Car but can't afford it. Want to contribute?

This thread would be cool if it were presented as a design thread only....

JMHO
 
It would be a cool thread if it wasn't just a bunch of talk. Doesn't anyone else get the feeling this thread is just a super expensive pipe dream?
 
He has done a lot of his homework on this! Maybe something came up in his life? Priorities in life change.


Tony
 
Well, you know....
I want to fly high
But I can't afford it

So, can you pay for me to fly high?

Really??? I want a Ferrari Super Car but can't afford it. Want to contribute?

This thread would be cool if it were presented as a design thread only....

JMHO


Telling the truth... I can't afford it.

But I DO know someone, actually, a couple of people, that can. Would you like me to introduce you?

More truth... I don't think it will help.
 
Everyone has dreams/goals.
Maybe this won't get off the ground today.
But eventually, it may happen if the desires are high enough and the commitment is even higher.
No telling what the future brings.
God knows, I had no idea I would be where I'm at 8 years ago.
I would have never predicted it, had no warning, it just happened.
Dreams and goals is all I have left, not much else these days.
I wish much luck for those involved in this venture and hope someday it happens.
I for one would like to see it.
 
XPRS and BALLS are not that far out.

Hey guys! Indeed XPRS and BALLS are closing in on me, but I do not plan to fly this year afterall. The design is very close to build-ready but I still need to iron out some avbay workings and I want to take a close look again at the tail with new scrutiny- I am beginning to loose faith in John's software's predictions.

Sorry for the lack of progress, but I took a bit of a break from the project, knowing that it wont fly this year anyhow. I like to take the occasional break from it and re-approach the problems after a while. Sometimes it gives me some fresh new perspective. But usually it's because I have work or school all day and I simply dont feel in the right zone to be putting thought into extreme rocket projects at 10pm that day.. Heres whats left to do.

1. I need to go down and visit my local metro elec. and see what they can offer in terms of small footprint pull-type solenoids. This will be the pin removal that allows the avbay plug to pop off and the avbay to start breathing on the way down. Dont have that modeled yet.
2. Once I obtain that ^ dimension, I can work toward getting a GOOD 3D model of the GPS-1 and his new expansion board, as well as a telemega for the purpose of 3D printing the sled. Right now, most of what's in my model is a bunch of cubes representing general dimensions. Like this-

Screen Shot 2015-08-24 at 9.22.37 AM.jpg

No battery cubbies, no switch mounts.... very unfinished. I had originally planned to simply standoff G10 sleds and just mount everything similar to how my model shows. I will upgrade that over this build season. This will be one trick avbay! Oh, and the off season will give me some time to do some underwater testing.

3. Fins. Recently I did my L3, and as a part of that build I decided to run a finsim on my tail for giggles. According to finsim, I have .1875 G10 fins that diverge at 550 and flutter at 750mph! :D Greeeaatt.... Yeah I dont believe that. Im doing something wrong or his software is off. I will need to examine the manual. But what does that say about my 3000mph aluminum flutter predictions for the two stage rocket? maybe theyre a bit conservative? Perhaps I could get away with aluminum fins. While at Aeronaut, Aidan and I were discussing the differences in the rates of thermal expansion between aluminum and ti, and that could be an issue as well. Again, I dont think my carbon skills are up to the task for this project, considering the heat over time of the tail, but I also want it to mate perfectly with that interstage. I need to get ahold of NextLine and get a requote for aluminum fins... get back to yall on that later.

- By the way... Does anyone have some insight as to why we cant fly steel stuff at tripoli events? I think aluminum coming in hot would have plenty of inertia behind it to negate a falling debris argument... Just wondering.. As Alex and I were discussing, steel seems like it has lots of professional rocketry uses.

4. EX
Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that this project would be considerably cheaper if you can get some EX guys excited enough to take part.

I had actually been thinking about that. There's various ways to bring the entire cost down, but they add risk is the issue in my mind. Example A- N5800 to N5800 eliminates the expensive IST and tail. 2 carbon jobs, a tube and youre done. Plus, it might even go higher and have a more spacious avbay. Regardless, I need custom hardware for the sustainer to support H.E.I, or atleast a custom closure. Im not a fan of the kapton and geko wire method. It does work, but it seems real flimsy, considering stage separation. Not to mention trying to make it work with my setup could get tricky. Therefore, I think RX motors would probably run $1000+ still.... Which I guess IS better than like 3 grand. How difficult is it to recreate the motors? I just saw Steve fly a badass 3" N at XPRS. Something like that would make a killer sustainer. M2245 is a full M 4.5s, I'd need something comparable and most critically > simmable.

5. Logistics- Yes I am aware of how I sound with the project pitch. No one has a gun to your head :) Heres the way I see it - I am a college student working a part time job to pay off a gas thirsty truck. I was trying to save up enough for an N at XPRS but I also need new tires. Theres absolutely no way I could afford this project while still in school. With an Air Force career approaching, I doubt I will even have much time in the next couple of years anyhow. I could probably drop a couple hundred to a couple grand into it, but not the entirety of the funding required.

Alot of times however, Ive seen people (even kids!) in situations like this inside of rocketry and out, and they are able to secure some critical donations that make their project possible. I feel fully confident in the design once we finalize those few things^ and then I will setup a funding suite and we shall see who wants to contribute. If enough people are interested and want to drop a few bucks on it, maybe we can make it happen. If not? Oh well. Pack everything up and wait on it for some years untill I can get back around to doing it on my own. It will just be a while...
Im simply putting it out there that if a large group of folks wants to drop some cash, I will make it all happen for us.
 
Last edited:
I gotta say, I admire frozen's upbeat mindset on this, considering all the "attitude" that he's been getting of late on this thread.

Yes it would be pretty cool to see some of these dreams/ideas turned into solid reality. Will keep watching to see where (if?) it all goes, and hoping for the best.

s6
 
I hope like heck he does succeed. I really admire his upcoming Air Force career. Best of luck!
 
Back
Top