Nose cone weight

https://rocketrywarehouse.com/index.php

https://madcowrocketry.com

https://www.wildmanrocketry.com



There are very very few places that make the type of fiberglass used in rocketry. I'd wager 90% or more comes from one source right now. That may be changing soon, but for most purposes at the moment, that site shows what you can expect to pay for glass.

After you have some thrust numbers we can give a better idea what type of materials to use. It's very likely cardboard tubes from LOC would do the trick. https://shop.locprecision.com/category.sc?categoryId=19


I strongly suggest some smaller rockets in the E/F/G motor range to get an idea of building techniques.


Here's another option that falls between cardboard and fiberglass: https://www.apogeerockets.com/Building_Supplies/Body_Tubes/Blue_Tubes

That site has TONS and TONS of info on rocketry in general as well. A very good place to start reading/watching videos

Could also do phenolic

To add to my earlier post, I want to keep the cost under 120$. LOL, I am getting the Fuel for free, thank god. But, Most things like the body seem to be not super expensive. So, I am not worried.

(btw, i'm having a hard time finding the burn rate of a r-candy :s)

I will open a new threat in another forum, with the proper name, as this one is invalid. I will go off of the total impulse I have gotten off the internet which is around 131 N.s, which would translate into what type of engine?

G motor. The average/peak thrust still needs to be known, but I'd estimate the rocket needs to be three pounds or less. (1,000-1,500 gram range) including the motor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classification

SpaceTitan said:

This may be crazy, but I am looking to open a Aerospace company. This is just a prototype rocket. I am not alone on this project, I have a great deal of colleagues who are very very knowledgeable in the field, and I am going into this field in uni. Thank you all for your help! We are hoping to have this rocket flying and building larger ones soon.

And no, I am not out of my mind, although it may seem like it

Click to expand...

If you have all these friends, why do you need us? Somethin' is fishy here.

Andrew

And you wont get a ten inch dia rocket off the pad on a g....

Okay, I will try my best to get this static test underway, find out how much exact thrust I will get, and this is a low powered rocket? I'll open up a thread there and keep you posted on the build.

I am making a much smaller rocket this time around

Amazon.com has all different Weights of Fiberglass Cloth from lots of different Vendors for lots of different Prices.

I just started using Glass after Forum Member JeromeK99 gave me some Samples to get me started. It is very easy to work with.
I'll be ordering a lot of it when I get some more Money to spend on Rocket Stuff.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...rglass cloth&sprefix=Fiberglass+Cloth,aps,398

accooper said:

If you have all these friends, why do you need us? Somethin' is fishy here.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Naw. Just a high school kid. I'm not big on sugar motors, but if he wants to try it...that's his call.

SpaceTitan said:

Okay, I will try my best to get this static test underway, find out how much exact thrust I will get, and this is a low powered rocket? I'll open up a thread there and keep you posted on the build.

Click to expand...

I'd toss it in Mid power. Can't help you much on the motor side of things, but airframe....sure.

I do not know the regulations in Canada, but if you make it yourself it might end up being considered a high power rocket motor or a pyrotechnic device and come under various restrictions. You should do a little research to find out where the project stands under the regulations of your country. Here in the US, the appropriate regulations would be NFPA 1127, mostly.

https://www.canadianrocketry.org/ - This might also be a good place to start looking for info. That is if I've interpreted correctly that you're from Canada...

Gerald

SpaceTitan said:

I will open a new threat in another forum, with the proper name, as this one is invalid. I will go off of the total impulse I have gotten off the internet which is around 131 N.s, which would translate into what type of engine?

Click to expand...

You are confusing specific impulse with total impulse. Specific impulse is a measure of the efficiency of the propellant and the motor. Sugar propellant has a specific impulse of ~130 seconds or an exhaust velocity of ~1.3 km/s.

DizWolf said:

Naw. Just a high school kid. I'm not big on sugar motors, but if he wants to try it...that's his call.

Click to expand...

Correct.

G_T said:

I do not know the regulations in Canada, but if you make it yourself it might end up being considered a high power rocket motor or a pyrotechnic device and come under various restrictions. You should do a little research to find out where the project stands under the regulations of your country. Here in the US, the appropriate regulations would be NFPA 1127, mostly.

https://www.canadianrocketry.org/ - This might also be a good place to start looking for info. That is if I've interpreted correctly that you're from Canada...

Gerald

Click to expand...

Also https://www.nakka-rocketry.net/ so he does do something stupid.....

Bob

I also am from Canada and I do know the Explosives Act. There is a fair bit of regulations around building a sugar rocket here. Which non-restricted chemical are you combining with sugar? There are a lot of great suggestions from our friends down south which are illegal here.

Please look at Natural Resources Canada, Explosives Regulation Division. They have a great website with lots of details on rockets, explosives and restricted components. Frankly it's a very bad idea to make your own motors. And, there is no need when commercial ones are readily available.

Also check out the Canadian Association of Rocketry.

We are very fortunate to have a great many clubs to choose from but CAR will set you on the right path.




Sent from my iPad using Rocketry Forum

Hal8472 said:

Also check out the Canadian Association of Rocketry.

We are very fortunate to have a great many clubs to choose from but CAR will set you on the right path.

Click to expand...

Surely there must be a club or two somewhere near this guy who can give him some pointers and help him take his first few steps?
(Yeah, I know, Canada is a big place, the closest club is hours away, and don't call me Shirley....)

SpaceTitan said:

Hey guys, I am new to rocket building and the site. I am designing a high Powered rocket.

Click to expand...

You need to understand that those words have been posted quite a few times before by overly ambitious, over-excited people. You also need to understand that basic rocketry design is considerably more involved than gluing together fins and tubes and nose cones. Optimization of vehicle characteristics and development of a booster capable of reliably lifting any significant weight to a usable research altitude is waaaaay beyond 99.99% of the people on this forum. You have a long path to follow before you will get there.

Your best plan at this point is to get a much better understanding of rocketry basics. You should start with some low-power and mid-power kits. You would probably learn a lot about design, construction, flight performance, budgets, and schedules by simply building your own TARC rocket (no, you don't need to enter the competition, but following through the steps would be very educational for you). You should make every effort to find a local rocketry club because you will learn the most and the fastest that way.

My two cents.

There are lots of posts already made on this forum and in the archives of the original. Spend some time looking around (and mention that you have done such as part of your posted qstns) and you are more likely to (1) find some of your own answers and (2) irritate some of us old farts a bit less.

See if you can follow the info posted here:
https://www.rocketryforumarchive.com/showthread.php?t=3379&highlight=center+gravity
but be warned: the guy on there gets a little wound up with over-explaining how to do mass properties calculations