Help Support RocketryForum by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.


Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: OpenRocket

  1. #1
    Join Date
    26th November 2017
    Posts
    4

    OpenRocket

    OpenRocket is an awesome program. It stopped at 15.03 after numerous improvements.

    I was really hoping on seeing pods and other stuff to simulate, like on the Big Ones (Delta IV, for example).

    Any free programs out there that can deal with the aerodynamics of putting the engine rooms outboard, to drop off as they burn out?

    The way to get into orbit is easy. You go up as high as you can, point your bow to the East, and step on the gas.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    30th January 2016
    Location
    US > OK > NE
    Posts
    3,335
    OR is still under active development. Like many open source projects staffed entirely by part-time volunteers, the next version will be out when it's readyish. There's test versions floating around if that strikes your fancy.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    15th October 2015
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,264
    Currently, debugging work is underway on ver. 17.11-rc2. In all likelihood the next release(with pods and many other goodies) will be an 18.0x
    NASA success rate since 2000: 94.7%
    SpaceX Falcon 9 success rate: 95.5%
    My personal success rate: 91.1%
    My YouTube channel

  4. #4
    Join Date
    13th October 2014
    Location
    SouthEastern, WA
    Posts
    5,538
    Any chance fins on transitions/boattails will be supported in the new version?
    Rich

    NAR# 99154

    L3-4x upscale Estes Cherokee-D- AT M1297W 5/28/2016 http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthr...r-rharshberger

    TriCities Rocketeers NAR section# 736 http://www.tricitiesrocketeers.org/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    27th March 2013
    Location
    Has Changed
    Posts
    9,385
    Quote Originally Posted by rharshberger View Post
    Any chance fins on transitions/boattails will be supported in the new version?
    Transitions and boattails have been supported for some time... Or at least, you could do them. The only thing that you can't do with them is add fins to them.

    For fins attached to them, I use phantom body tubes to attach them, but I do have to put up with discontinuity in body tube diameter messages.
    Dreaming of making the rockets I dreamed of as a kid (and then some).


    NAR L1 Cert flight: Sheridan, Oregon, USA. Sept. 19, 2015. Flew Deep Space OFFl on an I357T-14A Blue Thunder

  6. #6
    Join Date
    27th March 2013
    Location
    Has Changed
    Posts
    9,385
    @Cabernut

    Any word about my mysterious shifting of decals in the debugging work? I sent the .ork, and haven't heard a thing since.
    Dreaming of making the rockets I dreamed of as a kid (and then some).


    NAR L1 Cert flight: Sheridan, Oregon, USA. Sept. 19, 2015. Flew Deep Space OFFl on an I357T-14A Blue Thunder

  7. #7
    Join Date
    13th October 2014
    Location
    SouthEastern, WA
    Posts
    5,538
    I am asking in reference too NOT having to use phantom tubes and tricks, actually being able to drop fins on transititions and boattails.
    Last edited by rharshberger; 30th November 2017 at 03:39 AM.
    Rich

    NAR# 99154

    L3-4x upscale Estes Cherokee-D- AT M1297W 5/28/2016 http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthr...r-rharshberger

    TriCities Rocketeers NAR section# 736 http://www.tricitiesrocketeers.org/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    14th July 2015
    Location
    Randolph, NJ
    Posts
    3,134
    Quote Originally Posted by rharshberger View Post
    I am asking in reference too NOT having to use phantom tubes and tricks, actually being able to drop fins on transititiobs and boattails.
    In that case, nope.
    Recently completed: Starship Avalon / in progress: Accur8 Trajector and Ragnarok Orbital Interceptor / planning: Alcubierre and Plasma Dart 2
    My design thread / Fleet pics /
    My OR Renderings

  9. #9
    Join Date
    19th August 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabernut View Post
    Currently, debugging work is underway on ver. 17.11-rc2. In all likelihood the next release(with pods and many other goodies) will be an 18.0x
    Do have a link to 17.11-rc2 ?
    Leo - NAR 33680 SR
    L1 | Estes Nike Smoke Dual Deploy | CTI H-163 | May 17, 2014 | Orangeburg SC

    My rocket fleet and more @ Leo's Leisure Site and on YouTube
    Project ALTDuino - A Homemade Altimeter

  10. #10
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by neil_w View Post
    In that case, nope.
    Count(Pod) >= 2?
    Charles McGonegal
    Ciderwright at AeppelTreow Winery & Distillery
    www.appletrue.com
    NAR #103560 L1 6/25/17 Estes Leviathan CTI H175-SS
    Ad Astra Tabernamque!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    14th July 2015
    Location
    Randolph, NJ
    Posts
    3,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles_McG View Post
    Count(Pod) >= 2?
    I believe it will support Count(pod) = 1.

    However, I haven't touched one of the most recent builds; the broken 3D rendering sent me back to a February build for Alcubierre. That oldie doesn't let you save #pods = 1, so my temporary solution is to leave that design open in an OR window all the time.
    Recently completed: Starship Avalon / in progress: Accur8 Trajector and Ragnarok Orbital Interceptor / planning: Alcubierre and Plasma Dart 2
    My design thread / Fleet pics /
    My OR Renderings

  12. #12
    Join Date
    15th October 2015
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,264
    Quote Originally Posted by neil_w View Post
    I believe it will support Count(pod) = 1.
    ...
    Pods <2 are "unofficially" supported. You have to manually change the number to 1 as it won't allow using the down arrow past 2. Simulation results, I believe, will be off with 1 as it won't account for the off-axis drag & CP. There wouldn't be any simulation warnings either.

    I tested it a minute ago and a file will save with one pod(automatic positioning) and reopen correctly.
    NASA success rate since 2000: 94.7%
    SpaceX Falcon 9 success rate: 95.5%
    My personal success rate: 91.1%
    My YouTube channel

  13. #13
    Join Date
    14th July 2015
    Location
    Randolph, NJ
    Posts
    3,134
    Iíll take it.
    Recently completed: Starship Avalon / in progress: Accur8 Trajector and Ragnarok Orbital Interceptor / planning: Alcubierre and Plasma Dart 2
    My design thread / Fleet pics /
    My OR Renderings

  14. #14
    Join Date
    22nd September 2017
    Posts
    350
    Nope. But I've seen university research level CFD Linux projects beat $54,000 Solidworks CFD. And the hypersonic professor with twenty years experience wants your fuel composition to run a simulation. Finds oblique shocks, gas particle interactions, exhaust plumes, and also computes drag coefficient so you can find the drag force at various angles of attack.

    But Yeah... OR ain't bad for what it is. The other route took a complete 3D model and three weeks of real Sheldons not actors to get one number for one math equation so I could have a drag force accurate. Granted the other route works for real large spacecraft and tactical missiles as well as high power college design rockets... They basically re mesh your 3D model on a very fine level of detail. The sim itself took 15 minutes grinding through thousandths upon millions of math time varying functions of DE...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    22nd September 2017
    Posts
    350
    The other Linux route is when you don't have a Mach 1.7 wind tunnel and you need engineering numbers for applications not in a artsy doofus way. You want to find the drag force on the fins to compute the joint failure and pin size for example. Needless to say as you exceed Open Rocket, the reality becomes complex to solve.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    15th October 2015
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew_ASC View Post
    Nope. But I've seen university research level CFD Linux projects beat $54,000 Solidworks CFD. And the hypersonic professor with twenty years experience wants your fuel composition to run a simulation. Finds oblique shocks, gas particle interactions, exhaust plumes, and also computes drag coefficient so you can find the drag force at various angles of attack.

    But Yeah... OR ain't bad for what it is. The other route took a complete 3D model and three weeks of real Sheldons not actors to get one number for one math equation so I could have a drag force accurate. Granted the other route works for real large spacecraft and tactical missiles as well as high power college design rockets... They basically re mesh your 3D model on a very fine level of detail. The sim itself took 15 minutes grinding through thousandths upon millions of math time varying functions of DE...
    OK.

    But I've seen better on faster machines, not telling you where.

    How is this relevant to simming a model rocket? Ever hear of the K.I.S.S. principle?
    NASA success rate since 2000: 94.7%
    SpaceX Falcon 9 success rate: 95.5%
    My personal success rate: 91.1%
    My YouTube channel

  17. #17
    Join Date
    22nd September 2017
    Posts
    350
    This was our senior design project sustainer stage for an overly expensive L-1 Multistage design at University Tennesee of Chattanooga. NASA won't even give you certain equations publicly and you start finding more technical data in .mil sources. You will find OR sucks at supersonic airfoils that taper from root to tip at higher mach applications. Thanks to Dr. Sreenivas and Dr. Newman. Those two were awesome researchers to help out the senior design project in support of SEDS competition. They told us OR was "off". :] We flew this bird in UTAH.

    or incase it fails to display,

    https://i.imgur.com/B3MZBqh.png

  18. #18
    Join Date
    13th October 2014
    Location
    SouthEastern, WA
    Posts
    5,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew_ASC View Post

    This was our senior design project sustainer stage for an overly expensive L-1 Multistage design at University Tennesee of Chattanooga. NASA won't even give you certain equations publicly and you start finding more technical data in .mil sources. You will find OR sucks at supersonic airfoils that taper from root to tip at higher mach applications. Thanks to Dr. Sreenivas and Dr. Newman. Those two were awesome researchers to help out the senior design project in support of SEDS competition. They told us OR was "off". :] We flew this bird in UTAH.
    So you are doing what you do best, bashing hobbyist grade products for being inferior to university research accessible resources that most hobbyists will have no funds/desire/need. We here are hobbyists most of us enjoy flying rockets and designing unusual/non-performance designs.

    So what!

    Maybe I speak for myself only but your attitude is pissing me off, you dont have to hang out with us hobbyists since we obviuosly are not up to your caliber. I have family that works in the aerospace programs at AEDC, and you know most of the engineers I have met from there are not nearly as insufferable as you!
    Rich

    NAR# 99154

    L3-4x upscale Estes Cherokee-D- AT M1297W 5/28/2016 http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthr...r-rharshberger

    TriCities Rocketeers NAR section# 736 http://www.tricitiesrocketeers.org/

  19. #19
    Join Date
    22nd September 2017
    Posts
    350
    We started with OR. It's way better than a rough idea. You can make it as complex as you want is all I'm saying. The 20 yr hypersonics dork pulls out a hand calculator, and he pissed me off saying OR was 0.4 Mach off. I still won't believe it. Lol.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    22nd September 2017
    Posts
    350
    Plus if you read the thesis paper on OR the author admitted he didn't have the CFD knowledge, it's hard to pick a bone with a FREE program, but there are limits.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    15th October 2015
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew_ASC View Post
    Plus if you read the thesis paper on OR the author admitted he didn't have the CFD knowledge, it's hard to pick a bone with a FREE program, but there are limits.
    The point is, it doesn't matter. We don't care. Keep It Simple Stupid means that since, for example, there is a + or - 10% total impulse for our motors, anything beyond OR/Rocksim/etc. is unecessary.

    You're clearly trying to impress us with all this overkill. It's not. I've seen this a time or two. Usually with young college students that think knowledge equals intelligence.
    NASA success rate since 2000: 94.7%
    SpaceX Falcon 9 success rate: 95.5%
    My personal success rate: 91.1%
    My YouTube channel

  22. #22
    Join Date
    18th March 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabernut View Post
    The point is, it doesn't matter. We don't care. Keep It Simple Stupid means that since, for example, there is a + or - 10% total impulse for our motors, anything beyond OR/Rocksim/etc. is unecessary.

    You're clearly trying to impress us with all this overkill. It's not. I've seen this a time or two. Usually with young college students that think knowledge equals intelligence.
    I could not agree more. If folks realized how much of a deal it is just to get a good mesh for CFD- sure, it is a superior method. I would love to have the time, knowledge, and money to play with this, but alas I do not.


    Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

    Mark Koelsch
    Tripoli 6155 L3
    Owner of http://www.rocketryfiles.com/
    Editor of http://www.thrustcurve.org/
    Member of the Tripoli Motor Test Committee, and keeper of the motor file

Similar Threads

  1. Help with Openrocket
    By gerbs4me in forum Rocketry Electronics and Software
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 13th May 2014, 08:45 PM
  2. OpenRocket bug
    By Nathan in forum Rocketry Electronics and Software
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 13th February 2014, 07:17 PM
  3. OpenRocket
    By JohnNGA in forum Rocketry Electronics and Software
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2nd October 2013, 12:27 AM
  4. CG and Openrocket help
    By Davidm in forum Mid Power Rocketry (MPR)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 15th September 2013, 12:54 AM
  5. OpenRocket 0.9.3
    By stickershock23 in forum Rocketry Electronics and Software
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 5th June 2010, 02:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •