Three Quarters of a Hundred Grand with Sunday Silent (75k' Balls Project)

Named for the '89 Derby and Preakness winner. In many ways large, experimental rocket projects can be analogized to horse racing; endless amounts of work, preparation, and money (and a little bit of luck; animal illness/injury in racing, logistics and weather in rocketry) laid out on the line for one shot at a dream being recognized. And so, another Black Rock stream of consciousness story enters the abyss if for no other reason than having a digital diary to look back on later.

Story

Upon returning from the very successful Aeronaut trip, where Verrukt (3" N motor project with a 20:1 L : D motor built from start to finish in one day) was flown to 33,000' and ~M3.4 and fully recovered 10 minutes later, I figured I could hang my hat on that for the year. That lasted about a day; the day after my return, A5tro An0n and I were at the gym and I was sharing stories from Aeronaut when he started talking about making a push for Balls for our long-conceptualized composite cased vehicle targeting 100k'. While we ultimately decided that getting that together would require more bandwidth than life would afford either one of us over the next six weeks, the wheels were in motion for the Balls trip (clearly, the concept of another Black Rock trip isn't a very hard sell around here). Verrukt was optimized for speed, not altitude, due simply to the geometry of the motor; but, having an absurdly efficient mass fraction was a big part of the project's differentiation from the countless "hobby-style" min dia projects I've flown over the years, each topping out in the mid-M2 range and in the 30-40k' range. Building off of this trend in the right direction, both Mat and I will focus on mass fraction for Balls; he will slide an all composite fincan over an N5800 with no upper airframe (just a nosecone) and go for L3 in style, and I will build a semi-optimized 4" rocket centered around a long-ish 98mm motor we flew in New Mexico in March (in the rocket that was subsequently found by a Redditor), with the goal of not purchasing a single part and only using tubing and composite scraps laying around the shop, and tailor the motor for altitude this time, not speed. The timeline isn't quite as tight as Aeronaut, thank God; but we hustled to get our >50k' apps in before the deadline, and now it's time to get busy working in swim lanes to each get our projects ready. Game on.

Project

Last we checked on this case, it was flying in A5tro An0n's rocket to 33k' and M2.5 in New Mexico in March:

[YOUTUBE][video=youtube;inKtC9BnFiw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inKtC9BnFiw[/video][/YOUTUBE]

A couple of notes on that project. First, I designed the motor to be super-conservative since the rocket was super heavy and non-optimized anyway. It was 78% solids with pretty large cores. It burned just fine, but it's time to dial it up a notch. That motor was 59" long with 54" of propellant; during a last-minute on-field switch from tower to rail buttons, a small (1/8") divot was drilled about 1/32" in to the top of the case inadvertently; I knew it would be fine because the last motor was running a pretty low pressure and the divot wasn't nearly as deep as the snap ring groove above it. I'm going to crank up the motor a good bit for Balls, so I'll get the top 2" or so machined off and a new groove installed; leaving me with a case between 56-57" and 51-52" of propellant. So, roughly a 13:1 L : D ratio; not nearly the 20:1 of the Aeronaut motor, but still longer than most hobby cases.

The right way to do this project is to do a 1/8" DOM case with pinned closures, but that requires a bunch of non-standard parts and a new case; we already have this case and though it's 3/16 wall and not close to optimized, this is a concession we're going to make since I not only have the case, but parts to fit it.

The motor will be 84% solids this time, on the higher end of what I usually run (82-83) but not crazy by any means; with proper processing it should still border on pourable. I'll dial up the Aluminum and add some Oxamide and tighten the cores just a pinch from the previous iteration, but not too much because the mass flux of this motor will be higher just because of the grains' chemistry, so we'll still go pretty conservative on the cores to keep the numbers right where we want them.

The rocket will be based on a scrap length of 1/8" thick carbon tube Mat tried to sell on here and ultimately received no interest; we'll be sure to make the tube feel wanted. Fincan tube will be 14" with G10-core fins vacuum bagged onto it with hi-temp epoxy; this will then be coated in an ablative Mat has been working on. This one won't be going as fast as the Aeronaut project, but since we're going for altitude now, we care about delam, so ablative is key.

An aluminum transition ring will slide over this, followed by roughly 3 feet of bare case. Then will be the typical upper airframe bolted into the forward closure with the av bay and dual deploy out of the nosecone. A change from the Verrukt design will be a second transition ring under the upper airframe.

Electronics will be a Stratologger, a Multitronix "Kate" unit, and a Telemetrum.

RasAero and Openrocket agree on 75k' at right around Mach 4; I think both are optimistic. If I crack 60, I'll be happy for an effort that cost me very little and provides an excuse to get back out to BR for the second time this year, especially since the previous iteration of this motor yielded 33k'. Manny will be making the trip with us, which was a last minute change and should make for good times all around.

I can't provide a lot of pictures just due to time constraints, but I can provide a good story, follow along if you wish. Look forward to seeing everyone out there-

Steve Heller

Wish I could be there to see it. :sad:

Could you have whoever is machining your motor from 59" to 57" turn down the OD to save you mass? My calculations are thusly:

pi * (1.9375")^2 * 36 = 424.557
pi * (1.75")^2 * 36 = 346.361
(424.557 - 346.361) * 0.0975 lb/in^3 = 7.624# for the 36" section as is

pi* (1.875)^2 * 36 = 397.608
pi * (1.75")^2 * 36 = 346.361
(397.608 - 346.361) * 0.0975 lb/in^3 = 4.997# for the 36" section

Reducing the thickness by 1/16" results in a 2.627# savings.

You'd obviously have a pretty wonky shaped rocket due to the thick carbon tube and the reduced inner section, but it would breed a creative name...Corsetca...Game, CorSet, Match...Quiet on the CorSet!....etc. You'd have an increased drag penalty as well.

Interestingly enough, your simulations are far outpacing the real life results of another similarly sized rocket with a much more favorable mass fraction and smaller frontal area that experienced very little (if any) ablation or delamination. Any chances that 60k' is optimistic?

patelldp said:

Could you have whoever is machining your motor from 59" to 57" turn down the OD to save you mass? My calculations are thusly:

36" (exposed case length) x 12.566" (circumference of 4" tube) x 0.0625" (thickness you'd remove) = 28.27 in^3 removed

28.27 in^3 x 0.0975 lb/in^3 = 2.76 pounds removed

You'd obviously have a pretty wonky shaped rocket due to the thick carbon tube and the reduced inner section, but it would breed a creative name...Corsetca...Game, CorSet, Match...Quiet on the CorSet!....etc. You'd have an increased drag penalty as well.

Interestingly enough, your simulations are far outpacing the real life results of another similarly sized rocket with a much more favorable mass fraction and smaller frontal area that experienced very little (if any) ablation or delamination. Any chances that 60k' is optimistic?

Click to expand...

This exact idea was first on the list of asks for the guy machining it - to turn the case down to 1/8" in this section. Ultimately, he wasn't comfortable doing the work as he couldn't guarantee concentricity of the part, and thus couldn't guarantee 1/8" wall consistency throughout the length of the machined portion. So be it...

Assume you're talking about Honey Badger. The motor will have 10" more propellant, which I'm hoping will compensate for the less favorable mass fraction to achieve roughly the same performance.

Also, this. Same original case (54" of pro, 3/16" wall), so I'll have 2" less propellant, and he's braver with his cores than I am so he had better volume loading - but it also tossed the world's least optimized rocket (traditional two-tube dual deploy, 3/8" thick fins, decals, the whole 9 yards) 60k' on a windy day. Figure 2 less inches of propellant, larger cores, and the fact that I'm not Al, but couple it with the fact that my rocket will be far more optimized than this one, and again, I'll be happy to achieve the same outcome.

[YOUTUBE][video=youtube;p0h1az9tRVw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0h1az9tRVw[/video][/YOUTUBE]

Quick update on this project - made a few small tweaks over the last couple of days. I revisited the prospect of flying a full 3/16" wall case, which was the plan only out of reluctant concession. I had a pretty clear image of what was going to happen - convincing myself that the path of least resistance was worthwhile, stretching myself impossibly thin in the 11th hour to get it done (as has become my tradition), only to get out to Black Rock and hit 40-45k' for what seems like the millionth year in a row because of my reluctance to start from scratch and buy a new case once the shaving was eliminated as an option. My friend Ryan (who knows a thing or two about optimizing rockets) said it best - "either you're building a rocket to be optimized or you're building something that works and is convenient." I think in my own mind over the years, my ambitious timelines and tireless innovation just to get a project out to Black Rock has masked the fact that my projects have been pretty plain vanilla and conservative by an engineer's standards. I've gotten scarily good at "building something that works and is (not at all) convenient" because I'm cheap, but I kinda came to the realization that the only thing more wasteful than buying a bunch of custom parts to save fractions of a pound is going out to Black Rock again, with all the inevitable drama and hulabaloo that comes with it, only to recognize the same mediocre outcome. So, I spent most of a paycheck this morning on what amounts to small tweaks in the end product, but should get me a lot closer to the simulated altitude of 75k' with the shaved case.

-Case will be 1/8" wall seamless tube, 3.5" ID, 3.75" OD the whole length
-Fin can will be based around a 4" coupler, not a 4" airframe
-The odd-size tube was only available in a 6 foot length, so while the propellant length will remain the same, the upper airframe will become aluminum as a continuation of the motor case as opposed to a piece sleeved on the end, and the nosecone will seat on top of the aluminum
-Closures will be pinned as opposed to snap ring, because there isn't enough thickness to effectively use a snap-ring design with 1/8" wall at the closure joints
-The transition ring that was going to slide up under the upper airframe will now slide up under the fincan, glued to the case over the pins, to act simultaneously as a thrust ring and a boat tail

So the overall design is almost identical, but as soon as you deviate from "stock" dimensions, all the parts have to change. But the difference between 42k', Mach 2.5, and another wasted Black Rock trip and 65k', Mach 3.5 and a trip to remember lies in the thousandths.

Goes without saying that the "not buying anything" is out the window, but I've never been more excited to play the game (Kobe Bryant reference...)

Stay tuned.

-prophecy

Hey guys, I saw this and I'm more of an email guy but I thought I would post some more details. The motor above is an O2500 built by Al Goncalves and flown by Ed Enyart at BALLS 2013.
Here's a better flight video:
[video=youtube;EVtDnDkYKXU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=EVtDnDkYKXU&app=desktop[/video]
Al G and I plan to fly an O2700 this year (slightly larger ~23.5nS), it's built and almost ready to fly.
Ed's flight was just under 64K MSL, ~60K AGL, we're planning to do better than that this year.
If we have more time, we'll post more details in the weeks ahead on possibly a new thread.

Have you submitted this project to the Class 3 Committee as an over 50,000' flight?

M

Hi Mark,
Yes, we submitted last month
to Kent.
Thank you
-James

Very good.

M

Hey Mark,

James and Al's project and my project are two separate entities - I, too, have submitted my project to Kent for over 50k' and been in subsequent communication with him.

James,

Hey, I think I recognize the guy in the UNC Swimming jacket in that video! I'd also be willing to wager a Bruno's dinner that you were "encouraged" to share the second video of Ed's flight . Al was telling me about your motor the other day. As I mentioned previously, I'll never be that brave with my cores so I need to compensate by running a thinner wall case. Needless to say, looking forward to seeing both of you guys, getting harassed by Al, and hopefully having two awesome flights.

General project update: I've just returned from a weekend trip to a wedding in SF; nothing like a left coast trip to get excited about an imminent Black Rock trip. While I was away, I was getting lots of emails about parts arriving at my door en masse; mainly metal and graphite. I'm meeting with the machinist later this week to go over the CADs of various parts to be fabricated, and hoping to get a 13 hour work day in on Sunday. Grind time - stay tuned.

-s

I would love to see this project go.

Subscribed

Steve, good luck with the project. See you on the playa. Derek

A little horse racing interlude if I may, what a race... Preakness 1989:
[video=youtube;c48c26AJAXY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c48c26AJAXY[/video]

Agreed, Mark - getting this thing ready in time is going to be my own personal version of that.

To that end, a meaningless update while I wait for parts to arrive - I just got my friendly reminder from Southwest that my flight to Reno is around the corner. How kind of them, seeing as my rocket still exists only in my head.

I'm meeting with the machinist on Thursday, armed with all materials and CADs of all parts, to get that effort going. Then, it's time to build the fincan.

Two issues I'm currently pondering, both in realms of amateur rocketry I'm less well versed in. Crowdsourcing for opinions:

1.) Since the sim tops out at around Mach 4, I naturally need to reinforce the fincan significantly - using hobby standard 3k 2x2 twill carbon and Cotronics resin, my plan had been to use 4 layers, feathered and then vacuum bagged, seal the leading edges with JB Weld and then coat the whole thing in ablative. 4 layers x 4 sides = 16 pieces to cut in 4 different sizes, a pretty thick mound of carbon on each side (though feathering would help prevent delamination), and a very involved and time-consuming layup process. To simplify things, I'm thinking of using 12k 2x2 twill carbon - a heavier material that would allow me to surpass the equivalency of 4 3k layers with just 2. I understand that this is normally used in the manufacture of carbon plate - but think it may be worthy of consideration. Anybody tried this? Thoughts?

2.) Modification of the Telemetrum to convert to an SMA adapter/antenna - seems like the antenna options are as varied as the opinions here; what antennae have people used with theirs, and with what results?

I just tried to post a picture, and for some reason the forum isn't letting me - I had kinda determined that I wanted to pursue an actual photographic build thread this go around - anybody else have that problem where the "Upload" button after you select a photo from your hard drive isn't active?

Thanks

-prophecy

Yeah, upload has been screwed up for a while. Do it through Advanced, Manage Attachments instead.

prophecy said:

Two issues I'm currently pondering, both in realms of amateur rocketry I'm less well versed in. Crowdsourcing for opinions:

1.) Since the sim tops out at around Mach 4, I naturally need to reinforce the fincan significantly - using hobby standard 3k 2x2 twill carbon and Cotronics resin, my plan had been to use 4 layers, feathered and then vacuum bagged, seal the leading edges with JB Weld and then coat the whole thing in ablative. 4 layers x 4 sides = 16 pieces to cut in 4 different sizes, a pretty thick mound of carbon on each side (though feathering would help prevent delamination), and a very involved and time-consuming layup process. To simplify things, I'm thinking of using 12k 2x2 twill carbon - a heavier material that would allow me to surpass the equivalency of 4 3k layers with just 2. I understand that this is normally used in the manufacture of carbon plate - but think it may be worthy of consideration. Anybody tried this? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I can't speak about your particular fabrics, but generally I'm not a fan of the thicker and therefore stiffer ones, especially if I want to stick them in to corners like fillets. At a certain point the tendency of the fabric to straighten out becomes bigger than the adhesion and it might lift up from the underlying substrate. A quick Google search yields a manufacturer that also points the less suitable molding characteristics out. That being said, your vacuum bag will ultimately keep the fabric in the right place, so I wouldn't be worried about the strength of the end result - it just might be a little cumbersome to work with until the vacuum gets applied.

Reinhard

Another cool project Steve, I have something similar in progress. If you're planning on reaching Mach 4 with composites I think using phenolic leading edges is really the proven way to go. I had jb weld leading edges burn off at way slower velocities, it held together but the resulting carbon fiber tassels didn't help reach my projected altitude. Whatever way you choose, best of luck and look forward to the rest of the build.

jfd said:

Hey guys, I saw this and I'm more of an email guy but I thought I would post some more details. The motor above is an O2500 built by Al Goncalves and flown by Ed Enyart at BALLS 2013.

Click to expand...

I made the motor hardware for that.

prophecy said:

Agreed, Mark - getting this thing ready in time is going to be my own personal version of that.

To that end, a meaningless update while I wait for parts to arrive - I just got my friendly reminder from Southwest that my flight to Reno is around the corner. How kind of them, seeing as my rocket still exists only in my head.

I'm meeting with the machinist on Thursday, armed with all materials and CADs of all parts, to get that effort going. Then, it's time to build the fincan.

Two issues I'm currently pondering, both in realms of amateur rocketry I'm less well versed in. Crowdsourcing for opinions:

1.) Since the sim tops out at around Mach 4, I naturally need to reinforce the fincan significantly - using hobby standard 3k 2x2 twill carbon and Cotronics resin, my plan had been to use 4 layers, feathered and then vacuum bagged, seal the leading edges with JB Weld and then coat the whole thing in ablative. 4 layers x 4 sides = 16 pieces to cut in 4 different sizes, a pretty thick mound of carbon on each side (though feathering would help prevent delamination), and a very involved and time-consuming layup process. To simplify things, I'm thinking of using 12k 2x2 twill carbon - a heavier material that would allow me to surpass the equivalency of 4 3k layers with just 2. I understand that this is normally used in the manufacture of carbon plate - but think it may be worthy of consideration. Anybody tried this? Thoughts?

2.) Modification of the Telemetrum to convert to an SMA adapter/antenna - seems like the antenna options are as varied as the opinions here; what antennae have people used with theirs, and with what results?

I just tried to post a picture, and for some reason the forum isn't letting me - I had kinda determined that I wanted to pursue an actual photographic build thread this go around - anybody else have that problem where the "Upload" button after you select a photo from your hard drive isn't active?

Thanks

-prophecy

Click to expand...

I thought Cotronics had better heat resistance than J&B Weld? If the materials can stand the heat, they supposedly have adhesives that can stand 700 degrees F but they have to be baked in an oven.
Would have to find a big enough oven! I believe the 4525IP is supposed to be good to 500F and cures at room temp. I thought J&B is lucky to get 325 degree resistance and the strength is compromised
significantly when heated in that range.

Keith always mentions the best performance they've had is with a plain-jane wire antenna but if the entire rocket is CF, you won't see much Rf energy on the outside of the airframe.

If you try to embed some copper foil to make a 70cm dipole on the surface of the airframe, could it delaminate off if you plan seeing Mach 4? Your GPS isn't going to be putting out packets at this crazy speed/G until it gets down to 1000knots. The best you could hope for is some packets on the coast up to apogee at a time after burnout along with telemetry on the way down.

If you can't get a solution for an embedded airframe antenna and you can prove your GPS can get a lock from inside the CF tube, you could go with a bulkhead mounted 70cm Rf antenna that gets exposed at apogee when the rocket comes apart. The packets will then start coming in at least on the ride down. Another strategy would be to "harden" a GPS tracker in a case to ride on the apogee shockcord when the rocket comes apart.
In that case, you would want the GPS tracker to be receiving packets before you seal it up in the rocket, launch as soon as practicable and hope the device gets a lock when ejected out of the airframe on the shockcord.
That supposition assumes your GPS can't get a lock while inside your carbon fiber airframe so the best you could hope for there is packets on the way down.

If the GPS can't get a lock from within the CF airframe, that would nix the prospect of using the Telemetrum as a GPS/telemetry device. If the CF is radiolucent to the GPS frequencies, you'll be in business.

Is the rocket a conventional DD or something else like two separate parts or a cutter or a chute cannon?

Are you shooting for a record? If so you'll need to have a system working so the GPS tracker can get a lock at or near apogee. If the tracker can't get a GPS lock from within the airframe you are SOL there.
You'd have to come up with some sort of "window" in the side perhaps covered with glass? Geez that sounds too hard.

The only other "easy" alternative I can think of is to carry the tracker in a "radiolucent" fiberglass nosecone with a substantial metal tip. The metal tip won't interfere much, if any on the Rf transmissions so that would be the ticket if possible. I'm not knowledgeable about that kind of speed if a metal tipped FG nosecone could take it.

One other anecdotal advice I can share is I once did an inadequate ground range test with a 70cm Beeline GPS tracker 16mW. I launched the 3 inch diameter rocket on a Loki L1400 and got 10'k out of it.
I only received one packet at 8500' and that was it. I lucked out in that the rocket recovered under the main chute within eye-shot. I was able to download a beautiful .kml file that showed I had a 7 to 11
satellite lock the entire recording period. Not only that, I put the rocket away in my car and didn't tear it down to shut off the BeelineGPS until I got home. The .kml file showed the entire flight and showed some
packets where my car was parked in the pizza place we went to after the launch! Had a few packets on the 36 mile drive home stored in memory too.

What happened was the metallic paint I used blocked the outgoing 70cm Rf but was transparent to the GPS signals. If CF is totally opaque to all Rf energy you'll need to make compromises. Best of luck.
Kurt

So what got sent to the C-3 committee?
Seems like radical changes within the 3-month submission deadline.

Nice project, but is it anything like what that paperwork said it was to be????

Mike,

Binder Design said:

I made the motor hardware for that.

Click to expand...

You made the motor hardware for our project UN-120 too.
Al has made some modifications to the hardware.

Thanks,
-James

FredA said:

So what got sent to the C-3 committee?
Seems like radical changes within the 3-month submission deadline.

Nice project, but is it anything like what that paperwork said it was to be????

Click to expand...

Hey Fred, no Class 3 paperwork here as this motor is just barely an O. The only requisite submission was the internal over 50k' submission to Kent, which was due only a few weeks ago after the design was pretty much set (6 week lead time). Since then, the issue of being unable to turn down the existing case has arisen, necessitating the subsequent change in case material and requisite dimensional tweaks. Kent is aware of the changes and why they were necessary.

Look forward to seeing you and the crew out there.

Best,

Steve

Burner said:

Another cool project Steve, I have something similar in progress. If you're planning on reaching Mach 4 with composites I think using phenolic leading edges is really the proven way to go. I had jb weld leading edges burn off at way slower velocities, it held together but the resulting carbon fiber tassels didn't help reach my projected altitude. Whatever way you choose, best of luck and look forward to the rest of the build.

Click to expand...

Thanks James, (attempting to) keep up with the group of all of you guys a couple years my senior and all with aero eng degrees keeps me inspired and pushing the limits. Are you/Reese/Hailey going to make it out this year?

That said, I can't borrow ALL the concepts from HB...:wink: My current plan for the fins is the G10 core with some iteration of vac bagged carbon (particular weave TBD), followed by epoxy coating (maybe I'll use Cotronics if you had issues with JB?) and ablative. What are your thoughts on the age-old aluminum tape trick? The adhesive is completely useless at this velocity and it'll only cause drag, I would imagine.

Hope to see ya out there & be sure to give the fish down there a fighting chance!

-s

prophecy said:

Thanks James, (attempting to) keep up with the group of all of you guys a couple years my senior and all with aero eng degrees keeps me inspired and pushing the limits. Are you/Reese/Hailey going to make it out this year?

That said, I can't borrow ALL the concepts from HB...:wink: My current plan for the fins is the G10 core with some iteration of vac bagged carbon (particular weave TBD), followed by epoxy coating (maybe I'll use Cotronics if you had issues with JB?) and ablative. What are your thoughts on the age-old aluminum tape trick? The adhesive is completely useless at this velocity and it'll only cause drag, I would imagine.

Hope to see ya out there & be sure to give the fish down there a fighting chance!

-s

Click to expand...

I agree on the tape, pass on that. I had better luck with Jim Jarvis' leading edge concept than coating with jb weld. Who cares if you copy Ryan and David, their idea was based off usc's project and both worked well. If you just want to try something different make sure it's different than what many have already tried unsuccessfully in less demanding environments. What's your ablative coating? There is more than one way to skin a cat, so I hope your method works out.

I hope to be out at BR next year, the fishing is the best it's been in 20 years down in SoCal so it's been hard to get any work done on my rockets.

jfd said:

Mike,


You made the motor hardware for our project UN-120 too.
Al has made some modifications to the hardware.

Click to expand...

Awesome. Good luck with your flight.

Sweet project Steve - sounds like you're officially going with a thinner case with pinned closures as opposed to Fisher?
4 weeks until Black Rock...

Okay, work weekend #1 is in the books, and it didn't go at all as planned. I always knew Steinbeck was my favorite author.

Since I live in a high-rise, I have all my tools at A5tro An0n's shop about half an hour from me, and do my work in concentrated, 12-14 hour days, usually on Sunday, and then shelve all physical work and go back to planning, etc. until the following Sunday. Yesterday was supposed to be the first Sunday session, until an accident on Saturday left me with a large laceration on my right foot and unable to walk. As a result, I wasn't able to report for duty at 7am Sunday as planned. I couldn't afford to miss a precious 14-hour work day with Balls in a month, so I was forced to re-consider my options. I need to have the fincan done by this weekend to stay on schedule, so a trip to Harbor Freight and borrowing some of Mat's tools left me with this solution:

View attachment 271044

While I was at Mat's hobbling some hand tools into my trunk, I decided to take advantage of his floor-mounted drill press while I was there to chuck up my fincan tube for some surface prep:

View attachment 271046

I don't have a printer in my apartment, but my grandfather (who was an engineer back in the day) would have rolled over in his grave if I'd let that stop me:



I never got very good grades in middle school art class, wish Mr. Morrow could see me now:



Rough cut:



Since this injury will keep me out of the gym for at least a week (which usually consumes my weekday evenings), we'll take advantage of this time to stay on schedule with the fincan. Tonight, we'll assemble our shiny new Harbor Freight floor-mounted sander to edge and bevel the fins, and then bust out the glue.

Stay tuned.

Sorry to hear about the foot. Real bummer and one doesn't know how important their feet are until something like this happens. Try and gently keep the site clean to avoid infection.
Is it possible to do some of your work from a stool? If so, take advantage of it. Best of luck on the project. Kurt

Prophecy,

Have you checked to see if there is a local Makerspace that you can work at?

BLKKROW said:

Prophecy,

Have you checked to see if there is a local Makerspace that you can work at?

Click to expand...

Hey Kyle, not a bad idea, I'll have to check it out. Also, will you be at Balls? Thanks again for your help at Aeronaut.

Project update:

The goal is for this to be comprehensive, not selective, so even though nothing exciting happened last night, I still put the entire evening toward this project.

Plan was to assemble the floor-mounted sander, edge, match sand, bevel, and surface prep the fins, and tack them to the fincan tube. This plan conveniently neglected one very philosophical question: what's worse than assembling a large, "some assembly required" Harbor Freight tool by yourself? Doing it on one foot!



When the clock struck 11, no rocket work had been accomplished, but we had a complete sander:



Tonight, after two days of what I affectionately refer to as "admin work" and two days after the fincan was supposed to be DONE, we should start seeing some traction. More interesting update tomorrow, I promise.

-prophecy