Estes Star Orbiter #9716

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Since this is an Estes Star Orbiter kit it will get the same paint scheme as depicted on the face card.

However I'm undecided at to what color the GPS payload section should get:

Star-Orbiter_Ebay_Colors.jpg


Gold/yellow, silver/grey, black or red :confused:

(I'm leaning toward red....)
 
Since this is an Estes Star Orbiter kit it will get the same paint scheme as depicted on the face card.

However I'm undecided at to what color the GPS payload section should get:


Gold/yellow, silver/grey, black or red :confused:

(I'm leaning toward red....)

Red or Black.
 
Just in case you are interested the red paint color used on the Prototype of this model is Krylon Red Glowing Orange Fluorescent 3101 spray paint.n It dries flat so if you want it glossy you will need to shoot some gloss clear over it.


John Boren
 
I think I prefer to see the gold/yellow or silver/grey, simply to denote the separate Ebay, and give it more the appearance of a true sounding rocket.
 
Just in case you are interested the red paint color used on the Prototype of this model is Krylon Red Glowing Orange Fluorescent 3101 spray paint.n It dries flat so if you want it glossy you will need to shoot some gloss clear over it.

John Boren

Thanks for the info. Krylon is not available in Germany. I will be using Traffic Red made by Duplicolor.
 
I've made my decision on how I'm going to design the GPS payload tube.

It will get the same red color as the rest of the upper portion of the rocket so that it looks clean.
However to differentiate it from the standard kit that comes without a payload section I will add a decal taken from the Estes Vagabond.
Maybe like so...

Star-Orbiter_Ebay_Colors_1.jpg
 
I thought it over and decided that this will be the final design layout:

Star-Orbiter_Ebay_Colors_2.png
 
I've finished painting the upper section of the rocket (Nose cone, payload section, upper body tube and electronics bay):

Star-Orbiter_Upper_Section_Painted.jpg


Last step is to apply the decals on the parts.

I've also painted the lower rocket section in black. It will get another coat of paint.

Heading into the home stretch...
 
Build is complete :)

Star-Orbiter_Painted_1.jpg


Star-Orbiter_Painted_2.jpg


Star-Orbiter_Painted_3.jpg


Star-Orbiter_Painted_4.jpg


Today I added the last coat of black paint to the lower section and applied the decals.
The decals proved to be very frustrating. While I like thin decals these were a pain in the hiney!
I started with the name decal and that it's self was tough trying to get out excess water while keeping the whole thing straight.
With the lower decal wrap I failed completely and had to abandon the application. I then went and applied the upper decal wrap which I managed to get on the rocket albeit not perfectly, at least for me.
Since I didn't want to open another kit to replace the lower wrap I decided to use a decal from a Vagabond kit. I have plenty of these as I purchase them cheap for spare parts.
I placed two wider band decal wrap on the lower body tube and frankly I like them better than the diamond/star decals. Lastly I applied a two small band decal wrap on the GPS-Payload body tube.

I think the rocket turned out nicely.

Maiden flight is next, either here in Germany or in the States in September at Freedom Launch.
 
I'm with John - that's just almost too pretty to fly. And thanks for the heads-up about the decals. Mine is still all orange but it will get the dark color (I'm thinking a dark grey) and the decals at some point soon. I already know it's a great flyer.
 
I think an update is in order :)

Maiden flight took place on 9 September 2016 in Camden SC USA.

Estes_Star_Orbiter_05.09.2016.jpg


This was the last flight of the event and everyone was already packing up. The field crew as well. In fact most of the launch equipment was already partially disassembled but I wanted to get this flight off the ground as I came all the way from Germany for this flight to take place. Unfortunately it got really hectic while I was preparing the rocket for flight. That would come to haunt me after the recovery. The whole flight was great with a nice boost, arc at apogee, drogue less decent and nice.............. eemmmmm wait.... where is the main??????? Bang.... touch down.
One of my very very rare mishaps and after inspecting the situation I had to discover that main body separated only half way. The cause was quickly determined. I had double packed protection material for main ejection. One chute protector which I had forgotten that I had already placed in the body tube and consequently forgetting I did I added a lot of dog barf. That was too much for the ejection charge.
Nonetheless I was very lucky. Only damage was a small 1 inch crack at the root of one fin.
Packed into my luggage I took it back to Germany to be repaired. You wouldn't know is was ever damaged and thus I felt comfortable to take it back to the States only 3 months later where it had two further flights this time with complete successes :)

Here video of the two launches:

[YOUTUBE]vaJS3YbNAmg[/YOUTUBE]

I look forward to more launches and higher altitudes.
 
Nice work! I think this is a kit that may not be receiving as much attention as it deserves. It is cheap (~$14 after 40% off at Hobby Lobby), good looking, and is an ideal Estes 29mm BP motor burner according to my sims.

Many of the Pro Series II kits which can use Estes BP motors are rather massive for the long 0.5 second 29mm BP motor thrust buildup and use up too much of the launch rod length to accelerate to less than ideal velocities prior to leaving it. My painted stock build of the Star Orbiter weighs only 177g.

Interestingly, even though it appears from the simulation I performed that it will be the perfect Estes 29mm BP burner, a 29mm motor block was not included in the kit, so I used the one from my Ventris which I definitely would not use even though it was included.

31987581774_562e076234_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is what a G74 did to mine :) Repaired using basswood and trying another G74 this spring.



1486762328647.jpg

1486762349111.jpg
 
IMG_6173.jpg
Interestingly, even though it appears from the simulation I performed that it will be the perfect Estes 29mm BP burner, a 29mm motor block was not included in the kit, so I used the one from my Ventris which I definitely would not use even though it was included.

....Also note that even though Estes recommends an F15-8, the F15-6 seems to be preferable in the simulation, probably due to the long duration, relatively low sustainer thrust in the F15-x motors and the low mass of the rocket causing rapid deceleration. I haven't launched mine yet, so I don't know for certain if this is accurate.

My real world data using the F15-8 in a Star Orbiter carrying an AltimeterThree and a Chute Release has it ejecting about 1 second after apogee....which to me is just about perfect. This is typical for the three flights I have on it on F15-8s (and is why I'm waiting for my local H-L to get F15-8s back in).

I also have two flights to just over 2000 feet on Aerotech F26-9s. There the delay is almost perfect - just a fraction of a second past apogee for deployment. In one case it fell all of two feet after apogee before deployment.

Maybe it would slow down more without the added ounce and a half of payload (plus what I did to make the top few inches a payload compartment).

The instructions tell you have to make a tape thrust ring....I did find the lack of motor block interesting myself, but that opens up other possibilities as long as one stays reasonable (and away from transonic speeds :eek: )
 
Last edited:
View attachment 311510My real world data using the F15-8 in a Star Orbiter carrying an AltimeterThree and a Chute Release has it ejecting about 1 second after apogee....which to me is just about perfect. This is typical for the three flights I have on it on F15-8s (and is why I'm waiting for my local H-L to get F15-8s back in).

I also have two flights to just over 2000 feet on Aerotech F26-9s. There the delay is almost perfect - just a fraction of a second past apogee for deployment. In one case it fell all of two feet after apogee before deployment.
Good to hear some real world figures. For rockets too new to have a database of motors actually flown with associated results on rocketreviews.com, they're great to have.

Just simulated an F26-9 and I got 1746 ft with an optimum delay of 6.49s.

The instructions tell you have to make a tape thrust ring....I did find the lack of motor block interesting myself, but that opens up other possibilities as long as one stays reasonable (and away from transonic speeds :eek: )
Yes, my point was that since this is a perfect Estes 29mm BP rocket because it is light, it is strange that they don't include one while on Pro Series II models that are far less ideal because they're too heavy to achieve decent launch velocity, they include one. This is the first Estes kit I've ever made that didn't include a motor block to at least give the option of installing one.
 
This is what a G74 did to mine :) Repaired using basswood and trying another G74 this spring.
That doesn't surprise me considering the simulated near-mach max velocities. This is why the lack of an included motor block surprised me. It's not like you're going to want to put a motor in one of these that's so long that a 29mm BP motor block is going to interfere with it!

My paper surfaced/laminated balsa fins provide more rigidity to prevent catastrophic flutter (plus they're far easier to ge a nice finish on), but Gs are the last motors I'll try after I get bored with the rocket. I want this to last as a 29mm BP motor burner for cheap, long burn flight demos. An F32-8 sims as a nice motor to use without destructive max velocities.
 
I'd leave the motor block out so that I could use an AT 29/40-120 case. E, F, and G motors in one case. And it's longer than the BP motors. When I use BP motors in my Majestic, I put 4 wraps of model masking tape to create a thrust ring.
 
Just simulated an F26-9 and I got 1746 ft with an optimum delay of 6.49s.

Interesting. Here's the same configuration - with an A3 and a Chute Release. Model's empty weight is 6.2 ounces - though it was a touch lighter when I did both flights I've posted as it didn't have the grey lower color on it then....

A flight from last month on an E16-6 had it ejecting just a touch early at 962 feet. This is in its current configuration with the added paint/decal.

IMG_6177.jpg

IMG_6178.jpg
 
Last edited:
View attachment 311510I also have two flights to just over 2000 feet on Aerotech F26-9s. There the delay is almost perfect - just a fraction of a second past apogee for deployment. In one case it fell all of two feet after apogee before deployment.
When I change in the simulation the fin leading edge from stock (square) to rounded, I get almost exactly your results - 2043 ft apogee, optimum delay 7.4s.
 
My fins are rounded. I'm too much of flying machine guy to ever fly square edged fins.

Now I know why your results have lower altitudes and shorter delays required.
 
I'd leave the motor block out so that I could use an AT 29/40-120 case. E, F, and G motors in one case. And it's longer than the BP motors. When I use BP motors in my Majestic, I put 4 wraps of model masking tape to create a thrust ring.
For this model, in the rare occasions I'm not using 29mm BP, I'll use 24/40 reloads for E & F considering the potential balsa fin shred factor for anything larger. Of course, that takes an adapter, but I've got two versions of those, one homemade. There's no motor block in my Ascender for the same reasoning as yours. There's a motor block in my Majestic since I use it exclusively for 2-stage BP flights.
 
My fins are rounded. I'm too much of flying machine guy to ever fly square edged fins.

Now I know why your results have lower altitudes and shorter delays required.
And there's the reason. At first I thought it might have been my OpenRocket sim file.

I only round the fins for HPR (actually elliptical when I use my 3D printed leading edges) and for any low power stuff I plan to use in altitude competition (which hasn't been relevant for a very long time). For the balsa fins on sport models, I always laminate them on both sides with full page paper sticker material (Avery 5265). It makes for much stronger and virtually as light fins that are much easier to finish. The excess paper sticker material around the edges is removed with a hobby razor tool tracing around the fin which is made easy with a square leading edge. A rounded/airfoiled edge is far more likely to be nicked using that method. I then run water thin CA along each edge to seal.

In my book, it's better to have stronger fins than to round edges when I'm not shooting for altitude. I even have several models that I've specifically designed to be draggy and, no, I'm not referring to spools There's even a few threads here about that goal.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top