AspireONE- New Kid on the block

[Rustie0125]

Hey Fellow Rocketry Geeks
I've recently joined this addiction and can't stop. I'm new to Rocketry but not new to electronics, programming and mechatronics. Rocketry allows me todo all of the above. I live in Canada and LPR is my only choice. But that should not be a limitation. As a result I started a new project Called the STEM Rocket project that's designed to be open source. Or it will be. Fully 3D printed rocket parts anyone can make, custom flight computers, antenna design, Pyrotechnics, telemetry and much more. HPR guys should not be allowed to have all the fun. This rocket is specifically designed around C to G size motors. Here is the channel with the first rocket called AspireONE

 

[thzero]

Interesting, Cool.

I have a DD with GPS that is bt-80 sized. Trying to keep weight down is a challenge with lightweight materials let alone printed. And I have built some bt-70.... Smaller is just too much pain in rear. So yeah... Certainly high power doesn't have all the fun with electronics

When is the open source coming? And what CAD program? (Stls are meh.)

No idea why you are printing body tubes, but ok.

Btw... High power im Canada does exist (maybe issue where I are at?)

https://www.canadianrocketry.org/en/certifications

 

[neil_w]

No idea why you are printing body tubes, but ok.

I admit this kind of perplexes me as well. Commercial body tubes are light, strong and resilient. Everything else seems like fair game for 3D printing but I see little advantage to printing the tubes.

Nonetheless, nice project, and good luck with it.

 

[Rustie0125]

Interesting, Cool.

I have a DD with GPS that is bt-80 sized. Trying to keep weight down is a challenge with lightweight materials let alone printed. And I have built some bt-70.... Smaller is just too much pain in rear. So yeah... Certainly high power doesn't have all the fun with electronics

When is the open source coming? And what CAD program? (Stls are meh.)

No idea why you are printing body tubes, but ok.

Btw... High power im Canada does exist (maybe issue where I are at?)

https://www.canadianrocketry.org/en/certifications

Hey, Thanx for the message,

Aspire one Wet weight is 450g with a F15-0 Motor everything included, According to open rocket thats about 230 to 280m in altitude. I agree using cardboard tube would yield better results but its certainly not as customizable as the 3D printed tubes the flap deployment system aswell as the Flight computer bay would be alot more complex building it by hand, Remember this is a BT40 mm tube with internal working space of 38mm.

Each body tube weighs about 14g so not much, and extending, fixing or replacing sections is 2 screws and your done. The aim here is to create a development platform for anything STEM Related. so if a person just wants to really work on the flight computer everything else is print and assembly.

CAD files are designed in Onshape and will be available there for branching. Anox the flight computer is designed in CircuitMaker and will be available there for branching. I'm trying to get the a coupled of more flights in to makes sure everything is covered and then will be released with the first STEM version of the rocket.

Im based in SW Ontario, so worse place possible. i'm aware Canada has high power but the point of this project is to get away from the requirements for FAA waivers and certification levels. as everything there is to learn from a STEM perspective at this level can be achieved below 300meters in altitude. so thats the aim.

 

[A-ron]

Im based in SW Ontario, so worse place possible. i'm aware Canada has high power but the point of this project is to get away from the requirements for FAA waivers and certification levels.

Hello @Rustie0125, I see that you've caught the rocketry bug!

As a fellow resident of Ontario (Central), I know your pain. High power rocketry in Ontario currently doesn't exist. At minimum, you have to travel all the way to Québec for that. Luckily for us, there's no rules against building low power rockets with high power construction techniques, complete with electronics! A great option for those who may be allergic to red tape.

Your AspireONE rocket is quite amazing and I'm glad to see that you'll be open-sourcing your designs. Thank you so much for sharing your projects so that we may all learn from them. I'm very much looking forward to seeing future projects of yours!

 

[Rustie0125]

Hello @Rustie0125, I see that you've caught the rocketry bug!

As a fellow resident of Ontario (Central), I know your pain. High power rocketry in Ontario currently doesn't exist. At minimum, you have to travel all the way to Québec for that. Luckily for us, there's no rules against building low power rockets with high power construction techniques, complete with electronics! A great option for those who may be allergic to red tape.

Your AspireONE rocket is quite amazing and I'm glad to see that you'll be open-sourcing your designs. Thank you so much for sharing your projects so that we may all learn from them. I'm very much looking forward to seeing future projects of yours!

Hey A-Ron

Thank you for the support,
You are 110% correct. Just because its LPR does not mean it can't be high-tech... and fun..lots of fun.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

I hear you, just about 170 miles dead south near Pittsburgh, PA, USA! Now, we DO have high-power outfits around here, but we also have people... and TREES... in great abundance, if you can find 1000' in one direction (much less both), it's a red-letter day... and then get permission. So yeah, I hope to work a lot of wizardry below 1000' that can get the young'uns interested in hands-on and brain-on STEM activities. So I'll be watching... right now I'm lot more talk than action, but I'm trying...

 

[thzero]

Hey, Thanx for the message,

So you have you run this thing through OpenRocket yet? I'm curious.

 

[Rustie0125]

So you have you run this thing through OpenRocket yet? I'm curious.

Yes I have, as best I can since open rocket does not allow for some of the features. Some assumptions had to be made but here are the result.

 

[Rustie0125]

I hear you, just about 170 miles dead south near Pittsburgh, PA, USA! Now, we DO have high-power outfits around here, but we also have people... and TREES... in great abundance, if you can find 1000' in one direction (much less both), it's a red-letter day... and then get permission. So yeah, I hope to work a lot of wizardry below 1000' that can get the young'uns interested in hands-on and brain-on STEM activities. So I'll be watching... right now I'm lot more tall than action, but I'm trying...

Fully agree!

 

[thzero]

Yes I have, as best I can since open rocket does not allow for some of the features. Some assumptions had to be made but here are the result.

Oof, 7.84m/s is really slow off the rod. Not sure what you set your rod to, might check that. But a lot of folks focus on 50 fps, or ~15 m/s.

What features do you think are missing? The flip out brake fins can be simulated with a drogue chute if you have a rough Cd calculation for them.

 

[Rustie0125]

Oof, 7.84m/s is really slow off the rod. Not sure what you set your rod to, might check that. But a lot of folks focus on 50 fps, or ~15 m/s.

What features do you think are missing? The flip out brake fins can be simulated with a drogue chute if you have a rough Cd calculation for them.

Jip, I'm aware it's rather slow, have a 6 foot rail but getting a 8 foot to be sure. I have additional 80g I can shave so can get it better.

 

[OzHybrid]

I admit this kind of perplexes me as well. Commercial body tubes are light, strong and resilient. Everything else seems like fair game for 3D printing but I see little advantage to printing the tubes.

Nonetheless, nice project, and good luck with it.

Not everyone lives in the US. To get some 29mm motor mount tubes shipped was going to cost OVER US$100....... I now make my own tubes using a RattWorks motor as a mandrel. That's why it's attractive if it can be made to work. Just sayin....

 

[Voyager1]

Oof, 7.84m/s is really slow off the rod. Not sure what you set your rod to, might check that. But a lot of folks focus on 50 fps, or ~15 m/s.

What features do you think are missing? The flip out brake fins can be simulated with a drogue chute if you have a rough Cd calculation for them.

Yes, your velocity off the rail is far too slow. You do want around 15 m/s or higher. Check you rail length in OR. Should probably use at least 1.5 m for a rocket that size.
Also, your rail buttons should be repositioned: one down near the aft end of the BT; the forward one near the CoG.
Additionally, check your T/W (thrust/weight ratio) is no less than 3:1; better still, 5:1 or more. I think with the F15 you're going to struggle at <3:1, particularly if there's a wind. Try simming with different wind velocities and see what happens.

However, interesting project and nice presentation. Good luck with the development!

 

[thzero]

Jip, I'm aware it's rather slow, have a 6 foot rail but getting a 8 foot to be sure. I have additional 80g I can shave so can get it better.

Certainly would help...

For reference I have a 1.5" body rocket, with DD and altimeter, designed and weighed in at 470.6021g without engine. 6' rod with a F35 I can get 59.4fps off the rail. So weight wise probably ok especially if you are dropping 80g.

 

[Rustie0125]

I wouldn't say I'm terribly worried about the speed of the rail at this stage. the rocket can easy be extended due the connector system and 100mm body tubes, so getting to 1.5M will add like 60g max so can increase the stability by fair margin plus increased rail lenght. once the design has been proven a few times, the designed can be optimized to get maximum stability and altitude. AspireONE is really a test bed for all sub systems like the flight computer, flaps etc. The STEM Rocket which is the follow up to this that will be made public has already a few advancements over this one, Weight being one of them.

Yes, your velocity off the rail is far too slow. You do want around 15 m/s or higher. Check you rail length in OR. Should probably use at least 1.5 m for a rocket that size.
Also, your rail buttons should be repositioned: one down near the aft end of the BT; the forward one near the CoG.
Additionally, check your T/W (thrust/weight ratio) is no less than 3:1; better still, 5:1 or more. I think with the F15 you're going to struggle at <3:1, particularly if there's a wind. Try simming with different wind velocities and see what happens.

However, interesting project and nice presentation. Good luck with the development!

 

[markg]

Not everyone lives in the US. To get some 29mm motor mount tubes shipped was going to cost OVER US$100....... I now make my own tubes using a RattWorks motor as a mandrel. That's why it's attractive if it can be made to work. Just sayin....

Best of luck with your project, looks like you have a lot of great ideas. I'm also in SW Ontario - I get all my misc rocket bits from allrockets.ca. A 29mm MMT is $1.80, shipping is very reasonable and usually delivered next day for me.

cheers - mark

 

[Rustie0125]

Best of luck with your project, looks like you have a lot of great ideas. I'm also in SW Ontario - I get all my misc rocket bits from allrockets.ca. A 29mm MMT is $1.80, shipping is very reasonable and usually delivered next day for me.

cheers - mark

Hey Mark, Ya I know all about all rockets. RocketScientist is in Australia hence the comment from him. For me its about the flexibility in designing sub systems into the rocket body rather then placing them inside. So optimizing the material section and structural design is key to allow me to design anything I want.

 

[thzero]

once the design has been proven a few times, the designed can be optimized to get maximum stability and altitude.

Design should have stability considerations taken into account prior to any launch. Safety first. As far as rockets go, its also part of the E portion of STEM.

 

[Rustie0125]

Here is a smaller version I made and printed, wonders of 3D printing, two built in baffles, and motor mount- friction fit. print assembly, fly. Video to large to load here as it was slow motion but ill upload it as a youtube short and link it. worked great. 40g without motor can take C size probably did 150m and then lost it lol

 

[thzero]

As I have a several rockets with 3d printed fins (mostly for detachability) and some with 3d printed nose cones, as well as lots of 3d printed ebay and tracking sleds, I took a shot at more of a full 3d printed rocket. Top to bottom - nose cone (which could have a tracker in it or other electronics), payload bay, upper recovery bay for parachute, electronics bay for altimeters/batteries with dual deployment, lower recovery bay for the drogue, and then of course motor/fin mount.

Couple of items here. The couplers (purple) are longer than what I seemed to see in the video - usually most couplers are generally 1 caliber on either side (i.e. 4" rocket will have a 8" coupler) so I kept with that mantra for this. Now granted, with printing, the z-axis is the weakest for a 3d print (not without doing something about it, fiberglassing, or using something strengthening like your small carbon fiber rods which probably helps), so not sure it matters as much.

Printing with a Prusa based slicer, I noticed a couple of things
a) if using spiral vase mode, it elimates the seam, but only has a single layer - so in order to increase wall thickness, you need to use different nozzle sizes (i.e. .6 or .8) personally I switched to .6, for some nylon/CF filaments, and being lazy don't switch my nozzles so end up just printing with .6 these days.
b) if not using spiral vase mode, you can randomize the seam with the "Seam position" set to Randomize. Having a seam for a tube can be bad, as it would be more likely to split due to ejection charges.

Other differences - other than I don't have any flaps or electronics for it, which is an interesting and cool drogue approach, is that I was going to just use a standard retainer (probably just the Estes one, or there are some others out there via thingieverse, etc) via gluing in a motor tube and gluing on the attachment. The cardboard motor tube just acts as insulator between the engine and the plastic.

Attachment - I was originally going to just use 3mm with brass inserts. I may revisit and just make it 2mm nylon screws without inserts. Oh and its got support for two #2-56 shear pins for the upper section with DD.


I do agree about your comment about learning... so kudos.

 

[Seatechnerd83]

I wouldn't say I'm terribly worried about the speed of the rail at this stage. the rocket can easy be extended due the connector system and 100mm body tubes, so getting to 1.5M will add like 60g max so can increase the stability by fair margin plus increased rail lenght. once the design has been proven a few times, the designed can be optimized to get maximum stability and altitude. AspireONE is really a test bed for all sub systems like the flight computer, flaps etc. The STEM Rocket which is the follow up to this that will be made public has already a few advancements over this one, Weight being one of them.

I think he meant the launch rail needs to be 1.5m not the rocket. Also, those rail buttons need to be adjusted, (granted I'm not the best with positioning rail buttons but imo too close is much better than too far apart) the forward button should be at least near the CG, and the aft button should be within a caliber of the bottom.

 

[Rustie0125]

As I have a several rockets with 3d printed fins (mostly for detachability) and some with 3d printed nose cones, as well as lots of 3d printed ebay and tracking sleds, I took a shot at more of a full 3d printed rocket. Top to bottom - nose cone (which could have a tracker in it or other electronics), payload bay, upper recovery bay for parachute, electronics bay for altimeters/batteries with dual deployment, lower recovery bay for the drogue, and then of course motor/fin mount.

Couple of items here. The couplers (purple) are longer than what I seemed to see in the video - usually most couplers are generally 1 caliber on either side (i.e. 4" rocket will have a 8" coupler) so I kept with that mantra for this. Now granted, with printing, the z-axis is the weakest for a 3d print (not without doing something about it, fiberglassing, or using something strengthening like your small carbon fiber rods which probably helps), so not sure it matters as much.

Printing with a Prusa based slicer, I noticed a couple of things
a) if using spiral vase mode, it elimates the seam, but only has a single layer - so in order to increase wall thickness, you need to use different nozzle sizes (i.e. .6 or .8) personally I switched to .6, for some nylon/CF filaments, and being lazy don't switch my nozzles so end up just printing with .6 these days.
b) if not using spiral vase mode, you can randomize the seam with the "Seam position" set to Randomize. Having a seam for a tube can be bad, as it would be more likely to split due to ejection charges.

Other differences - other than I don't have any flaps or electronics for it, which is an interesting and cool drogue approach, is that I was going to just use a standard retainer (probably just the Estes one, or there are some others out there via thingieverse, etc) via gluing in a motor tube and gluing on the attachment. The cardboard motor tube just acts as insulator between the engine and the plastic.

Attachment - I was originally going to just use 3mm with brass inserts. I may revisit and just make it 2mm nylon screws without inserts. Oh and its got support for two #2-56 shear pins for the upper section with DD.

View attachment 577367
I do agree about your comment about learning... so kudos.

Very Cool! I did a couple of test yesterday and with my intergraded tube to tube connector interface measuring the weight, for 100mmx40mm Carbon tube vs 100mm 3D printed tube, The results are 14g/17g respectively. With normal PLA. I have used LW-PLA in the past. which is a good amount of saving. Plus these tubes will be available in 100 and 200mm sections

With regards to the printing settings. I use a 0.4mm nosel and have 0.8mm walls. I always have random start point enabled but also Ironing between layers. this makes the part 50% stronger atleast! I just use cura slicer so need to get familiar with the other features available in Prusa.

One way if found to increase the strength in all directions is adding a spiral 1mm filleted ribbing. I believe the secret to making this a scalable stem project is this interconnection that is used to attached all parts. the only custom part would be the final chute ejection tube. ( obviously has to be smooth) but the plan is to use M2 brass inserts or plastic self tappers but that limits reusability


With regards to the flaps/air break
This is probably the number one question I'm getting. The reason for the flaps vs the small drogue is cross sectional area from a side view once deployed. less surface area that the wind can push against the less drift I should have. This is is assuming once the flaps are deployed that the center of mass is still far enough below the flaps that it forms a parachute. if the rocket falls sideways then this goes out the window.

With regards to the motor tube, im trying to get away from any liner requirement. one way for the stem rocket is also in incorporate removable ( testing different fins) fins. But the point is the vertical slots around the motor is to create air channels. if small holes are placed towards the top of the motor mount then as the rocket ascends air should be sucked into the low pressure channels and expel some heat from the motor with it and cool the walls of the body. This does not address once the rocket has landed and static position the heat transfers but I need to test and see what happens. The only concern I have here is what drag this will cuase.


anyway Its fun!

 

[Rustie0125]

I think he meant the launch rail needs to be 1.5m not the rocket. Also, those rail buttons need to be adjusted, (granted I'm not the best with positioning rail buttons but imo too close is much better than too far apart) the forward button should be at least near the CG, and the aft button should be within a caliber of the bottom.

I know. i have longer rail in bound anyway, but the longer length would increase stability factor aswell. so twofold. ya the open rocket was just simulation. the position if the guides didn't end up there

 

[thzero]

Very Nice.

I was going to ask about LW-PLA - I see it being used a lot in 3d printing of R/C aircraft. But it has same drawbacks as PLA with issues of heat resiliency.

I am using Prusa, because its what the Bambu Labs is using as its underlying, and haven't gotten my non-X1 printer back into operational status.
This the ironing you are talking about?

https://help.prusa3d.com/article/ironing_177488
I do like the removable fin idea. Most of my larger rockets that have removable fins is bolt in (and with the fins themselves being fiberglassed) such as my 5.5" running on Js. But overkill probably in the smaller mid-scale arena

 

[Rustie0125]

Very Nice.

I was going to ask about LW-PLA - I see it being used a lot in 3d printing of R/C aircraft. But it has same drawbacks as PLA with issues of heat resiliency.

I am using Prusa, because its what the Bambu Labs is using as its underlying, and haven't gotten my non-X1 printer back into operational status.
This the ironing you are talking about?

https://help.prusa3d.com/article/ironing_177488
I do like the removable fin idea. Most of my larger rockets that have removable fins is bolt in (and with the fins themselves being fiberglassed) such as my 5.5" running on Js. But overkill probably in the smaller mid-scale arena

Yes thats it, this example just shows the top layer, but if you enable it for all layers, it basically just goes over the same trace line with no extrusion. so "Irons the print flat. but this results in stronger prints if enabled for all layers.

 

[Seatechnerd83]

Is that picture of the fin can looking from the top down, or the bottom up? because if its the bottom up, if you use a slightly too spicy motor, the fins will slip out and then if you have a rough landing, or a hard landing surface, youre gonna snap a fin.

 

[Rustie0125]

Is that picture of the fin can looking from the top down, or the bottom up? because if its the bottom up, if you use a slightly too spicy motor, the fins will slip out and then if you have a rough landing, or a hard landing surface, youre gonna snap a fin.

Ya these are all still very much in design, these fins will be held in place with retention screws at the top

 

[Seatechnerd83]

Ya these are all still very much in design, these fins will be held in place with retention screws at the top

Why don't you just flip the entire mechanism to make the acceleration push the fins into the mount instead of out of it, then you save at least 2g in unnecessary metal weight. If you save 2g here, 5g there, 3g another place, soon enough your rocket weighs 80% of what it did and you can either fit more payload or go higher.

 

[Rustie0125]

Your thinking is correct but unfortunately not that easy practically. 3D printing tolerances is not that great specially across long linear surfaces. I need to leave a 0.5mm gap between the fin slide and the tube silde to make site the two parts fit properly. So if there is not retention screw in place the fin with wiggle. The fin won't carry must force in that direction. So nylon screw will work fine. But even metal M3x5mm machine screw is minimal.