MLP (HB2.1) Rocket Flight to 63k ft, M3.9

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thanks Eric, really appreciate it! The rocket was as much (or more) of Oberth's doing as mine!

I'm glad you saw this, I was going to mention when I get to the electronics that your posts about your electronics experience at BALLS last year was fresh in my mind and we did some extra altimeter testing because of it. Its a good thing I read it because we ended up solving a GPS/altimeter problem on the pad that almost stopped the flight. I'll put up some more info about that when I get to the electronics section.

Looking forward to reading more!

This thread is painful....I was *over* my desire to push the limits and spend more time in the arid deserts of the west until I saw this thread. Ideas abound, un-flown airframes scream at me; I seek altitude. Darn you for doing excellent work and then publicizing it!:gavel:

Very much enjoying this thread; thank you for taking the time to share with us!

-Eric-
 
Looking forward to reading more!

This thread is painful....I was *over* my desire to push the limits and spend more time in the arid deserts of the west until I saw this thread. Ideas abound, un-flown airframes scream at me; I seek altitude. Darn you for doing excellent work and then publicizing it!:gavel:

Very much enjoying this thread; thank you for taking the time to share with us!

-Eric-

Any time! I hope you'll come back out with a project, the beer tastes great after a long day on the playa...

Hahaha, man I bet that sounded terrible.

Love all the pictures and the write up, that nozzle is awesome.

It actually wasn't that bad, mainly because I didn't have to do it. I was alternately cringing thinking we were going to screw it up and laughing because Hailey was getting burned with chips.
 
Using a custom tube means custom nosecone. We came up with a way to do this, essentially a nosecone adapter on HB2 that worked well and didn't require a FG mold.

Machining the adapter:

20140419_174003.jpg

The aft of the NC. The wall was thinned down to 0.125 to save weight and a step was added for a sealing surface. Also glaringly red in this picture is the MUVI camera in its holder. My friend bought a cheap 3D printer and printed a camera bay. I laid it out in CAD and it fit between the fiberglass adapter and sealing step but was held together with (not shown) allthread.

20140420_133121.jpg

Trial fitting the fiberglass NC into the adapter. You might infer from this picture that the angle of the Al adapter matches the glass NC well, unfortunately that is not the case as the nosecone turned out to be "5:1 ish."

20140509_141504.jpg

NC tip gone. As you can see there is material left on the shoulder to act as a guide for ablative and match machining.

20140531_114050.jpg

Prior to bonding the hobby cone was internally glassed with 4, or 5 layers of S-glass. This made it incredibly robust. No pictures of this process were taken because we were covered in epoxy. The process involved dropping strips of glass down the 3inch cone until we got to 4 or 5 layers then dropping peel ply, breather and an entire bag through the 1" hole in the tip. Luckily I avoided having to remove the bag because Oberth did it. As you can see the chisel he used might have scratched the 4th or 5th layer.

20140531_123235.jpg

And now for some ablative. A lathe is the best piece of equipment you can have if you're flying rockets.

20140606_134719.jpg

Smush. You may notice there is no Al left covering the lathe. This is because this is the 3rd application of the material that we are building up on the tip. Match machining a low angle over a long distance is an incredibly time consuming process, especially when you get 2" from the end and the bit plows into the underlying glass. As it turns out our glass cone wasn't 5:1 and we needed to make up the difference with ablative.

20140606_193023.jpg

And finally done. The undersized glass cone meant we needed to create an Al adapter in addition to the tip. No problem though because this gave us a match fit interface for the tip

20140608_125132.jpg

Notice how smooth and bright it is...

20140614_181054.jpg
 
Well, thats pretty much it. No pictures of the transition or tailcone. Just imagine a piece of tapered Al on a lathe and that's pretty much it.

We put the fincan on and painted it. Luckily the painting fixture didn't take too long to make

20140614_184935.jpg

With its little bro:

20140614_175228.jpg

and one of the many rattlesnakes that loved the corner of the garage:

20140323_183858.jpg
 
I would never have thought of adapting up the nosecone instead of reducing a larger one like Mike Passaretti did.
 
Now for the actual flight. It was a little windy when we launched this year but HB2.1 didn't care. From our view point it was kinda hard to tell any difference between HB2 and HB2.1 but the live telemetry was pretty fun to watch and gave us instant data. Before diving into the actual data, here's a video of the launch. Unfortunately the onboard didn't work (more on why later) but we got some decent footage from a distance and a pad cam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgT4p_GMiCM
 
Great flight! That thing was haulin'

Have any after pics? I'm curious to see how that ablative turned out.

See you guys at Aeronaut.

Alex
 
...

But now where is the "down" part?

Coming, I have a bunch of pictures of the recovery, I need to pull them off the camera.

Great flight! That thing was haulin'

Have any after pics? I'm curious to see how that ablative turned out.

See you guys at Aeronaut.

Alex

It was, it peaked at 70G - Ill get the pictures tonight or tomorrow morning. I'm getting excited for Aeronaut, I look forward to seeing your rocket!
 
Last edited:
Awesome build threat and flight guys. I was honored to have seen it go up. You guys recovered it really fast too. Nice meeting you also. Best of luck to you guys.
 
Driving up to it:

IMG_0536.jpg

IMG_0538.jpg


The nosecone:

IMG_0537.jpg

Fincan:
IMG_0539.jpg

Leading Edge Char

IMG_0540.jpg

Paint flowed onto the BT

IMG_0544.jpg

And around the pin holes:

IMG_0543.jpg
 
Last edited:
Wow, that's amazing!

I think one of the more ingenious aspects of the build is having the phenolic edges thicker than the fin core so that when you complete the tip to tip the leading edges of the layup are recessed beneath the oncoming airflow. This keeps the edges from melting and peeling off...or this is how I interpret the construction...it also looks like the layer of ablative (once sanded) ensures a smooth transition between the phenolic edges and layup. Well done guys!
 
WOW the fincan is in remarkably good shape compared to last time. Awesome improvements. Nice work guys!
 
James I agree. They have really thought it all through. The flight was amazing too! Heck I had butter flies!

Tony
 
...or this is how I interpret the construction...it also looks like the layer of ablative (once sanded) ensures a smooth transition between the phenolic edges and layup. Well done guys!

Exactly, having the phenolic leading edges thicker than the layup edges really helped protect the carbon, made it a lot easier to make too. Thanks!
 
Wow, that's amazing!

I think one of the more ingenious aspects of the build is having the phenolic edges thicker than the fin core so that when you complete the tip to tip the leading edges of the layup are recessed beneath the oncoming airflow. This keeps the edges from melting and peeling off...or this is how I interpret the construction...it also looks like the layer of ablative (once sanded) ensures a smooth transition between the phenolic edges and layup. Well done guys!

Thanks James! That was the idea and the hope with this flight was the ablative putty would be sort of a redundancy - since the rocket ended up going faster it turned out the ablative still charred about half way through the thickness. We also moved the fincan transition forward relative to the leading edges and made it larger than the fincan tube by .010, which helped protect the can a bit more.

Time for some more pictures, Oberth took these. Keep in mind there was no black paint anywhere on this rocket.

The virgin material on the leading edge phenolic:

DSCN0886.jpg

Cross section of the fin, you can see half that the ablative putty is ~half charred

DSCN0889.jpg

Base of the leading edge:

DSCN0883.jpg

Another fin:

DSCN0882.jpg

The nosecone minus playa dust

20140622_182609.jpg
 
:D
The only other cone I've seen recovered that look like that was Triano's from his carbon case M4 shot with Frank a while back. The ablative held up really well!
 
Congratulations, great flight

Where did you get the phenolic used for the fin leading edges. What specifications?

Thanks
 
Chris - The material for the leading edges of the fins was simply LE Phenolic from Mcmaster. Although Carbon Phenolic or even Silica Phenolic would have held up a bit better, we decided to stick with readily available, easy to machine materials that would allow us to make mistakes without too much invested. I have some ideas on improving these fins even more, we'll see if they can be implemented. We didn't hold any of our materials to any real specification; we got the best materials we could easily and ran any analysis - in this case thermal - with a good bit of margin.
 
Chris - The material for the leading edges of the fins was simply LE Phenolic from Mcmaster. Although Carbon Phenolic or even Silica Phenolic would have held up a bit better, we decided to stick with readily available, easy to machine materials that would allow us to make mistakes without too much invested. I have some ideas on improving these fins even more, we'll see if they can be implemented. We didn't hold any of our materials to any real specification; we got the best materials we could easily and ran any analysis - in this case thermal - with a good bit of margin.

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be simpler to just make whole fins out of G-11 or G-7 higher-temp garolite? The thicknesses and size of those fins don't make me think that CF was necessarily needed.

Hmm....
 
Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be simpler to just make whole fins out of G-11 or G-7 higher-temp garolite? The thicknesses and size of those fins don't make me think that CF was necessarily needed.

Hmm....

No, for a myriad of reasons that should be apparent, the most obvious being that the express goal of this rocket was to improve the durability of the leading edges to increase margin and reduce the drag of the eroded fin tips. This rocket was purely a test to prove concepts for a larger project.

Additionally:

1. G10 FR-4 eroded significantly on the last flight. Switching to G11 FR-5 to gain 15 degrees of temperature margin would be a slim improvement offset by the higher velocity of this flight.

2. G7 was not even a consideration. The price is astronomical compared to the materials we used and would have added ~10% to the cost of the rocket. That may have been excusable if the material properties were not all significantly less (read: HALF) comparable glass boards.

3. Fiberglass is more dense than carbon. Duh. We were trying to make it lighter. Its also stronger, so, we added margin.

4. Phenolic is way easier to machine than G11

5. A bulk fin of G11 or G7 would not have allowed the protected layup technique we used that was much, much easier to make than the normal method of slopping layups over the fins, this was an area we had hoped to improve and succeed.

Interesting to note: you imply these fins are thick a .1875, but interestingly they are thinner than the HB2 fins. The methods we used this year allowed us to control thicknesses of Carbon and ablative much better and we stuck to the .1875 net thickness across the fin, on HB2 the maximum thickness was .25.

So simpler? Maybe? It would have diverged from the design we were building off of and what we know works. Not that that is always a bad thing, but considering this rocket is doing more altitude and much higher velocity than most rockets, even those with 30% more impulse, I am OK with incremental improvement. Although, 10% more altitude and 26% higher velocity is a solid increment in my book.
 
Last edited:
A big part of this flight was an electronics test. Last year we struggled to get the data off the GWIZ, and found that it was interrupted by the BRB transmissions. It also had limited acceleration and altitude capability. We did not feel confident flying a bigger rocket without trialing some new electronics.

So came the search for a better altimeter. We landed on the Telemetrum from Altus Metrum. 100G Accel, 100K Baro, and a Kalman filter made it an attractive unit. Additionally it included a GPS which we needed since a friend lost my other unit. As if that wasn't enough it transmitted live data at 1Hz and was only $400 for the entire setup and would greatly simplify and lighten the altimeter bay.

Photo of the bay, it took about 30 minutes to complete this year:

20140701_211824.jpg

Once we got the Telemetrum up and communicating with the computer we started testing it extensively on the ground. Eric's BALLS experience was fresh in my mind and we were a little concerned about flying this rocket without flight testing the unit since it was new to us. We decided to see what we could do on the ground to hopefully head off any surprises on the playa. We found the unit to be very capable and ultimately successful, but did observe a few things during ground testing:

We learned quickly that this unit did not pick up GPS lock quickly at startup, even if it was previously sitting in idle mode. It seemed to be very sensitive to metal near the patch antenna, and so we did our best to eliminate any metal near the unit (see the break in the threaded rod). Putting metal near the patch antenna seemed to cause a break in the idle communication as well. Last we also found that movement other than very careful, slow motion would cause the unit to detect liftoff when it was in launch mode. This was not overly concerning because we planned to arm remotely.

On launch day we started the altimeter and let it run in idle, confirming satellite lock. We then completed assembly and loaded the rocket into the launch rail without turning the unit off, installed the igniter without connecting the leads or arming the system. We were concerned the launch pad would block the signal, but it held lock in idle mode after we had installed it. We stepped back and armed the altimeter via radio signal and allowed it to start up. This concept of operations is really great and eliminates a very common, dangerous procedure used in high powered rocketry: arming altimeters next to a rocket, especially on a ladder.

Unfortunately, at this point we did not achieve satellite lock. We waited. Nothing. After 20 minutes we were getting 1-2 satellites inconsistently. We tried twisting the rocket in the tower to no avail. We assumed that the launch tower was inhibiting the signal but due to our perceived launch detect sensitivity did not want to move the rocket. After an hour with no GPS lock we gave up and carefully lifted the rocket until the NC was above the tower. Within minutes we had 12 satellites in lock. We rushed to launch and were rewarded with live data, and GPS coordinates. Not only does AltOS display a lot of data at once, it also verbally notes the rockets condition. The data provided by the GPS allowed us to relay the position to the flightline so we could assure them the chute was out and the rocket was not overhead another great safety feature. We got GPS until 200ft AGL at 3.25 miles and drove right to the rocket. Awesome.

Overall this flight computer is great, it fully functioned during a pretty hard flight:

-Simple (No need to tetris a GPS, Altimeter and 4 batteries into the altimeter bay)
-Great Value (GPS + altimeter)
-Capable sensors (70G max accel and the Baro tracked the GPS very closely)
-Great features (live data telemetry!)
-Works in flight (deployed charges, accurate GPS position)

The only drawback was the ability of the unit to gain GPS position on startup. I plan to shoot Keith and Bdale an email and see if we can understand what the cause was. The BRB picked up lock in the same tower last year. Overall I am impressed by the unit and excited to fly it again.
 
Last edited:
We stepped back and armed the altimeter via radio signal and allowed it to start up. This concept of operations is really great and eliminates a very common, dangerous procedure used in high powered rocketry: arming altimeters next to a rocket, especially on a ladder.

I’m not familiar with the unit, is remote arming a built in feature or was this of your own doing?
 
It is a built in function: the unit decides whether it is in launch mode or idle mode based on the start-up orientation. When it is horizontal, it goes into idle mode during which radio communications can be transmitted and received. In this mode data is "asked for" by the ground station every 5 seconds. Other tasks can also be accomplished including: commanding an e-match to fire (for test), data download, and unit restart. We armed via the unit restart command when the rocket was vertical in the tower. In the vertical configuration the unit goes into launch mode and data transmission is a 1 way street; the altimeter transmits at 1Hz and will not receive commands.

I would suggest considering the on/off switch be accessible if this method were used, in case the unit needed to be shut down after arming.

We were communicating with a small whip antenna, like the one on the unit. Once we armed we confirmed transmissions looked good, shutdown AltOS, switched the YAGI in, and restarted AltOS.
 
Back
Top