Hovering a rocket - SpaceX model (video)
- Thread starter Winston
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
MClark
Well-Known Member
But it is not a rocket.
By this logic a quad copter could be called a cluster rocket. And actually work
M
By this logic a quad copter could be called a cluster rocket. And actually work
M
It's a model of a rocket. It's not the first stage of the Falcon 9 (which IS a rocket) but it's a model of it. So it's a rocket model.
If he perfects the controls and makes it where he can actually launch it with a motor, the second stage separates, and he can land it with the propeller that would be VERY cool to watch!!
The quad copter isn't a model of anything that I'm aware of.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,204
- Reaction score
- 1,547
To truly do a "practical" rocket powered model to do a controlled precision landing like SpaceX or the Lunar Module, or the way that multicopter can be landed, would require something like a hybrid rocet motor wth an incredibly micro-throttle ability, where the thrust could be varied within a few grams, certtinalym ore fine than one ounce increments. It is theoretically possible, but for practical reasons extremely unlikelly because hobbyists who tinker with hybrids, who might have the ability to deisgn and build a hybrid that can be THAT precisely throttled, have little reason to do so, UNLESS they are also into R/C or onboard guidance and want t obuild such a vertical landing rocket for themselves. While on the other hand, the rocketeers who might want to build such a model, do not have the knowledge to build such a hybrid, and the cost of hiring a hybrid specialist to develop such a motor would be huge.
Also, BTW, such a rocket powered vertical landing model still would need roll control by some means or another. Ruling out air-drven propeller/fan methods, then it would require something like RCS thrusters from a pressurized tank, or a battery / electric motor "flywheel" arrangement inside to vary the speed for torque.
And on top of everything else, then the flight time would be pretty limited by the amount of fuel & NoX the model would have (plus the roll control system consuming something). I mean, would a model that could take off, climb to 50-100 feet, then land all in 30 seconds be worth doing? Not to me, it wouldn't. Because it would be a "technically it flies" model, but not a good flying model that can be "flown around".
And that is exactly what this guy built, a "technically it flies" model. But it doesn't fly well enough to fly around. And he was into it just for the technical challenge, so having gotten it to work a bit, he's dropping it (at least for now).
Anyway, while using multicopters isn't quite the same thing as rocket power..... it certainly is VERY practical to do. The technology is incredible now, in the sense that a $30 Flight Controller has all the sensors and programming to keep a model pointed vertically, using variable thrust from motor/props or SERVOS (which is how it is possible to use some of those controllers to fly a rocket model vertically too). Yet it is not that hard to learn how to build such a model or to use an application on a home computer/laptop to change settings in the programming (you do not program code, you adjust settings via the App). I got a simple bare nylon 250 sized Quadcopter frame for $10, and learned online what parts I needed to get to make it fly, how to wire it up, choose the Flight Controller that was most suitable, and how to adjust that controller. And it worked right off the bat, which is more a comment that it wasn't crazy-hard to do than anything else, and lots of good info resources (I had learned to fly Quads before building my own).
So here is a link to a fellow who has done quite a number of impressive R/C Models, many of them VTOL planes, and multicopters. And a SLEW of sci-fi models, especially Star Wars. He made a Falcon booster that not only flies, and I mean FLIES, not just technically, but he went the extra mile for ultra-realistic landings.
[video=youtube;19mnsxcgjR0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19mnsxcgjR0[/video]
Link to his videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/ajw61185/videos
Here's a compilation of his Star Wars models, including a Speeder Bike, Y-Wing, TIE fighter, Bobba Fett's Slave 1, and others.
[video=youtube;5cHjw6UkGJ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHjw6UkGJ8[/video]
I'm sure most of you have seen this. After I was successful with my first Quadcopter build, I wanted to try to make a Lunar Module. I had wanted to make a rocket powered R/C LM since as long back as 1970. But I knew it was impossible for a hobbyist to do at the time, and I didn't even learn to flyR/C till years later). So, sure, its not rocket powered. But it's based on reliable, lightweight, reasonably priced available technology.
Photo by Peter Alway at NARAM-59:
And it has enough battery power and efficiency to fly for over 12 minutes (when using 5000 mAh packs, an upgrade over the 3000 mAh packs I used earlier) before the voltage gets low. That allows it to really FLY! Given the mass and the average thrust (about 15.5 newtons) over time (720 sec), this is an "HPR" model, at least 11000 Newton-Seconds on a 12 minute flight (actually a lot more since a multicopter moving horizontally requires more thrust and draws more current than hovering). An "N16" powered model.
Yeah, yeah, not rocket thrust, but still.... Also, it costs pennies per flight. The cost of electricity to recharge the battery, and the cost of eventual replacement after 100-200 cycles.
So here's a link to the thread about the Lunar Module Quad: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?137174
I have not yet made the "definitive" video of the model. This one is not the prettiest videos (like with the moon), but it does show some of the FLYING aspects of the model very well. It handles beautifully and is very controllable. The "Altitude Hold" mode keeps the LM hovering at the same altitude, without having to manually jockey the throttle. On this day there was a smooth low wind, so I kept flying it upwind, putting it into hover, then it drifted downwind as I used my camera by hand. Then I stopped using the camera, the neckstrap held the camera on my chest and "blindly" shot a lot of the other video while I was using the transmitter. For other videos I had used a GoPro on a helmet but the GoPro batteries were dead that day.
[video=youtube;TeeLxePIckU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=155&v=TeeLxePIckU[/video]
Also, BTW, such a rocket powered vertical landing model still would need roll control by some means or another. Ruling out air-drven propeller/fan methods, then it would require something like RCS thrusters from a pressurized tank, or a battery / electric motor "flywheel" arrangement inside to vary the speed for torque.
And on top of everything else, then the flight time would be pretty limited by the amount of fuel & NoX the model would have (plus the roll control system consuming something). I mean, would a model that could take off, climb to 50-100 feet, then land all in 30 seconds be worth doing? Not to me, it wouldn't. Because it would be a "technically it flies" model, but not a good flying model that can be "flown around".
And that is exactly what this guy built, a "technically it flies" model. But it doesn't fly well enough to fly around. And he was into it just for the technical challenge, so having gotten it to work a bit, he's dropping it (at least for now).
Anyway, while using multicopters isn't quite the same thing as rocket power..... it certainly is VERY practical to do. The technology is incredible now, in the sense that a $30 Flight Controller has all the sensors and programming to keep a model pointed vertically, using variable thrust from motor/props or SERVOS (which is how it is possible to use some of those controllers to fly a rocket model vertically too). Yet it is not that hard to learn how to build such a model or to use an application on a home computer/laptop to change settings in the programming (you do not program code, you adjust settings via the App). I got a simple bare nylon 250 sized Quadcopter frame for $10, and learned online what parts I needed to get to make it fly, how to wire it up, choose the Flight Controller that was most suitable, and how to adjust that controller. And it worked right off the bat, which is more a comment that it wasn't crazy-hard to do than anything else, and lots of good info resources (I had learned to fly Quads before building my own).
So here is a link to a fellow who has done quite a number of impressive R/C Models, many of them VTOL planes, and multicopters. And a SLEW of sci-fi models, especially Star Wars. He made a Falcon booster that not only flies, and I mean FLIES, not just technically, but he went the extra mile for ultra-realistic landings.
[video=youtube;19mnsxcgjR0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19mnsxcgjR0[/video]
Link to his videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/ajw61185/videos
Here's a compilation of his Star Wars models, including a Speeder Bike, Y-Wing, TIE fighter, Bobba Fett's Slave 1, and others.
[video=youtube;5cHjw6UkGJ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHjw6UkGJ8[/video]
I'm sure most of you have seen this. After I was successful with my first Quadcopter build, I wanted to try to make a Lunar Module. I had wanted to make a rocket powered R/C LM since as long back as 1970. But I knew it was impossible for a hobbyist to do at the time, and I didn't even learn to flyR/C till years later). So, sure, its not rocket powered. But it's based on reliable, lightweight, reasonably priced available technology.
Photo by Peter Alway at NARAM-59:
And it has enough battery power and efficiency to fly for over 12 minutes (when using 5000 mAh packs, an upgrade over the 3000 mAh packs I used earlier) before the voltage gets low. That allows it to really FLY! Given the mass and the average thrust (about 15.5 newtons) over time (720 sec), this is an "HPR" model, at least 11000 Newton-Seconds on a 12 minute flight (actually a lot more since a multicopter moving horizontally requires more thrust and draws more current than hovering). An "N16" powered model.
Yeah, yeah, not rocket thrust, but still.... Also, it costs pennies per flight. The cost of electricity to recharge the battery, and the cost of eventual replacement after 100-200 cycles.So here's a link to the thread about the Lunar Module Quad: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?137174
I have not yet made the "definitive" video of the model. This one is not the prettiest videos (like with the moon), but it does show some of the FLYING aspects of the model very well. It handles beautifully and is very controllable. The "Altitude Hold" mode keeps the LM hovering at the same altitude, without having to manually jockey the throttle. On this day there was a smooth low wind, so I kept flying it upwind, putting it into hover, then it drifted downwind as I used my camera by hand. Then I stopped using the camera, the neckstrap held the camera on my chest and "blindly" shot a lot of the other video while I was using the transmitter. For other videos I had used a GoPro on a helmet but the GoPro batteries were dead that day.
[video=youtube;TeeLxePIckU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=155&v=TeeLxePIckU[/video]
Last edited:
Similar threads
