PROJECT KARMAN

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,560
Reaction score
1,748
PROJECT KARMAN

https://www.berkeleyse.org/

The race to space heats up—on college campuses
One proposed rocket will have the capacity to lift 5kg to an altitude of 110km.
2/26/2018

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/the-race-to-space-heats-up-on-college-campuses/

eureka1-980x511.jpg
 
Thanks for that. Once the university teams get to suborbital space, then with staging smaller upper stages they can get to orbital space as well.

Bob Clark
 
I'll call bull on the full orbital part. Technical knowledge plausible by doctors in engineer stuck in research careers. Many of those are Ex-NASA/Mil/Aero industry types with decades of experience. I looked up the flight cost out of Wallops on Orbital and they want $44 million plus for insurance AND there's a funky hard to comply with rule for rocket must have a "remote detonation" device I assume with telemetry so you have the option to terminate a bad orbital launch to prevent it from falling over large populated cities I guess... Where's a college gonna get a remote explosive??? Or $44 mil. LOL.

Right now even suborbital is a stretch for college undergrad engineer teams. Budgets and experience are the issue. Many times a business may donate manufacturing services for $50k plus on a liquid rocket engine when you read about those. I've only done SEDS but I got talking with a UCSD member who was on Vulcan 1 the liquid rocket and he said one altimeter wire disconnected and destroyed three years of their work and a free $35K donated manufactured liquid engine. Ballpark was $100K to 30k ft on liquid fuel rocket. He wouldn't give exact figures since I was from another university.
 
Ahhh, the one school we are competing with..... ;)

What? I didn't say anything.
 
CFR 417.303 has the requirement to self destruct the rocket for orbital flight with the ground station terminate flight command taking priority over other commands. You might be able to secure all the licenses required for orbital flight but good luck with FAA approving a new "orbital" launch site. The insurance costs at existing orbital launch sites will be atrocious.

I think Amatuers could do an orbital flight with knowledge they have learned and what is out there. Colleges would have access to more federal assistance and design tools with seasoned industry experts. Its easy to say let's just stage a rocket. The hard part is doing it and complying with all the regulations. It's just the money involved and paperwork will ground 90% of anyone thinking of it.
 
I'll call bull on the full orbital part. Technical knowledge plausible by doctors in engineer stuck in research careers. Many of those are Ex-NASA/Mil/Aero industry types with decades of experience. I looked up the flight cost out of Wallops on Orbital and they want $44 million plus for insurance AND there's a funky hard to comply with rule for rocket must have a "remote detonation" device I assume with telemetry so you have the option to terminate a bad orbital launch to prevent it from falling over large populated cities I guess... Where's a college gonna get a remote explosive??? Or $44 mil. LOL.

Surely, that must depend on the size of the rocket. For instance, the Army initiated a program to get a $1 million launcher for small sized payloads:

https://spacenews.com/u-s-army-shelves-one-small-rocket-program-pursues-another/

They would not have done that if insurance and extra costs were as large as that for the large rockets.
As for the remote detonation you could have as a requirement that the Air Force be allowed to attach such a device. I don't think that would cost that much. For instance any licensed demolition expert would have the knowledge to install one.

Bob Clark
 
Surely, that must depend on the size of the rocket. For instance, the Army initiated a program to get a $1 million launcher for small sized payloads:

https://spacenews.com/u-s-army-shelves-one-small-rocket-program-pursues-another/

They would not have done that if insurance and extra costs were as large as that for the large rockets.

Two problems with your non-sequitur response: the US Air Force does not need insurance, only a private commercial entity does; and the programs referred to in your link are not showing the actual cost, but simply a goal with early investigation funding. All of this has nothing to do with countering Andrew's point on real costs.

As for the remote detonation you could have as a requirement that the Air Force be allowed to attach such a device. I don't think that would cost that much. For instance any licensed demolition expert would have the knowledge to install one.

Again, you need to research reality before posting uneducated guesses. Self-destruct systems are designed into the rocket and have significant 'impact' on the mass ratio.

The requirements to launch from ranges such as Wallops and Poker Flats are available online. Stop making stuff up.
 
Seems like the explosives part starts at ATF 5400.13 form , figure out the right permit, FEL requirements, I think you could put under other high explosives, and this gets way more complicated than any FAA pilot or FCC tech license paperwork I've ever done with consequences of felonies if you screw up because you know legit "explosives" and all that. FAA is FBI visit or court date with orange packet at worst for airspace busting so I've heard fellow pilots yap of, they are really nice compared to ATF. Got a feeling the ATF would sent SWAT and many Bearcats. Even if your OCD and figure out all the rules the ATF will visit you every seven days. Store the right kind of boom in the right ATF type 1,2,3 magazines for high explosives. Det cord and blasting caps go in type 5. Might be easier to start at dynamite licensing/permits. Local and state laws and ordinances apply so forget just blowing up a rocket cuz you got a explosives licenses/permit to verify the engineering calculations for safety system tests. You probably need full liability insurance and myriad of demolition approvals like how a city officially takes down a old building. A bunch of land and couple of million wouldn't hurt. Pyrotechnics got a ATF orange book for fireworks help, they had manufacturers go to jail and learned many hard ways of ATF being way too vague. Don't wind up in jail no LOL about that. That's a nightmare. The military grade orbital guidance bits need ITAR paperwork I can't figure out. Get an ATF type 10 then you could manufacture military disposal rocket launchers and the media couldn't scream about it because its legal then with an explosive permit also. ITAR covers the export of the sensitive bits. Maybe John would know of all the FCC telemetry garbage rules. There's one government lady at department of state that authorizes the space contracts saw her at SEDS and her favorite word is no man she was arrogant even to CEO of orbital ATK. I don't know enough of explosives other than the forms and rules look rather intense.

Couldn't tell you how Boeing or Lockheed Martin gets to put explosives and electronics into missiles legally but man from a paperwork perspective I would love to know details. Isn't America great?
 
Last edited:
If you need any hypersonics wind tunnel tests. The director of NAS is happy to help you for a significant fee. I asked how the test matrix programs worked. I jokes how about hobby rocket nosecone at Mach four could you find drag coefficient He said a private company would tell the Airforce test requirements then the air force staff will run the wind tunnel test and send you data from Tulahoma. He recommends UTSI for small project. I don't wanna guess how many millions that costs. They've done commercial trucks. I'm just an engineer student. They went to our campus and were showing a bunch of promotional videos.
 
Two problems with your non-sequitur response: the US Air Force does not need insurance, only a private commercial entity does; and the programs referred to in your link are not showing the actual cost, but simply a goal with early investigation funding. All of this has nothing to do with countering Andrew's point on real costs.



Again, you need to research reality before posting uneducated guesses. Self-destruct systems are designed into the rocket and have significant 'impact' on the mass ratio.

The requirements to launch from ranges such as Wallops and Poker Flats are available online. Stop making stuff up.

Yeah but the zillion dollar question is whose airspace is the rocket in? What kind of operation? Commercial or military? I only say this because dad was a military aviator. In military airspace he followed military regulations as a military pilot on a military mission in military aircraft but when that same aircraft entered FAA airspace then it was subject to some FAA operating rules exception were documents on board aircraft. The irony is those Army aircraft were Beechcraft King Air C-12 (Beechcraft 200 with military VIP upgrades and cargo door) but civy manufactured, the Bell UH-1 Huey. He is also a civilian commercial pilot so he knew the rules there in national FAA airspace under civil airline ops. In military airspace they had military flight plans and rules. In civil airspace they obeyed by civil FAA rules. Military pilots never show FAA any kind of licenses only mil ID. Theoretically the FAA is going to draw the hardline between is it a commercial operation for profit or is this a military op flown by military crew/technicians for a military interest. The military could buy a civy rocket and use it with their facilities for say a NRO secret project type deal out of their launch sites I'd guess with less FAA paperwork and possibly very little notice. Technically on that level the FAA approved the areas on sectionals as military airspace restricted or military operation area and under operating hours then the military is left alone to conduct internal operations beyond my knowledge.

The creepy rocket analogy would be the X-15 space flights flown by Airforce and Navy test pilots to Space. They became astronauts and had wings awarded. I bet when NASA or private companies flew X-15 in test flights it became a FAA regulated object in a commercial role. How about the NRO launching commercial manufacturers rockets if the rocket itself was government purchased not a civilian rocket anymore with military hardware onboard? Those are military operations if used by only military staff and if used in restricted airspace or military operations areas do not always have to follow FAA rules. The military has its own court systems and has it insure itself with tax money for mishaps. In many cases the regulations exceed private sector and court Martials can get issued. The army can quote a lower price at white sands missile range because its playing by its own rules if it's not a commercial operation. They have artillery ranges that have standoff distances with land masses around an impact zone to prevent injuries even if artillery is elevated far off target. Granted the military may not be advertising the daily rate to keep a missile open at hourly rates which likely exceeds that program costs for the rocket itself. If it's a military operation completely in military airspace then it's not a commercial op or subject to FAA rules I believe under very technical complex circumstances that I do not fully understand.

I was offered a chance to launch an HPR rocket at a military test range by a military veteran who claimed to know some High rank dudes. I declined but he claimed it would take three weeks for approval to use the military operation area for a SEDS flight. I didn't believe it would be possible so I erred on the side of caution and did it the FAA/TRA way. There are non civilian routes to accomplish space flight. To be fair to bob researching military ops as a civilian is really difficult. I think there's an exception with certain military ops or in times of war but I'm no lawyer dork.
There are many ways I do not know. Maybe there are research approaches that also do not require full commercial space flight regulations. It is much easier to find facts of commercial space regulations than to find facts on the military side.
I think the military has sunk and hidden costs to provide itself launch capabilities far exceed any NASA test range costs.
 
No. I just know military ops don't always follow FAA rules (manned aircraft), their rockets I'll toss my hands up and shrug.
 
Some university teams will be competing in the FAR-MARS competition in May to send a liquid-fueled bipropellant rocket to 45,000 feet:

STUDENT ROCKETRY TEAMS TO COMPETE FOR FAR-MARS PRIZE.
MOJAVE, CA – Student-built rockets will streak into the stratosphere in Spring 2018 as college and university engineering teams from around the world compete for $100,000 in prizes in a contest sponsored jointly by the Mars Society, headquartered in Lakewood, CO and the California-based Friends of Amateur Rocketry (FAR).
Announced last year, the FAR-MARS Prize will grant $50,000 to the team whose bi-propellant liquid-fueled rocket comes closest to reaching 45,000 feet (13,716 meters). A second $50,000 prize will go to the team that comes nearest to hitting that same altitude with a rocket powered by liquid methane and liquid oxygen, announced Dr. Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, and Mark Holthaus, director and treasurer of FAR. “If one team can achieve both goals with the same rocket, they’ll win both prizes totaling $100,000,” Holthaus said. https://www.marssociety.org/student-rocketry-teams-to-compete-for-far-mars-prize/


The list of teams that have registered so far for the prize is here:

https://mach5lowdown.wordpress.com/far-mars-competition/

I favor an incremental approach to space for amateur and student teams. First get to 100K feet, then get to suborbit, then finally get to orbit. USC's rocket propulsion lab reached 100K feet last year, and now plan a launch to suborbit next month.

If any of the teams competing for the FAR-MARS prize succeeds, then they should next try for 100K feet, then a suborbital flight thereafter.

Bob Clark
 
Just saw this on the "Mach 5" blog devoted to high power amateur rocketry:

[video=youtube;c4YbLZCsJgs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4YbLZCsJgs[/video]
https://mach5lowdown.wordpress.com/2018/04/07/graveler-ii-news-clip/

It reports on a ground test back in February by USC's rocket propulsion lab of the motor they intend to use for a launch to suborbital space this month.

Bob Clark
 
Back
Top