Fastest Documented Amateur Rocket Flight??

[wsume99]

I read a post earlier and it made me wonder what the fastest documented speed is during an amateur rocket flight? I checked the TRA records page and the only records I found are altitude related. My definition of documented is actual speed measured from an onboard device and recovered after a successful flight.

I believe I've seen posts with data to document flights in the M5 region but I'm curious what the responses will be. I'm just curious what people have accomplished. I have zero intentions of trying to fly anywhere close to M3+ in my lifetime.

I searched the forum and found reference to M5.2 speed in a flight by Ky Michaelson. That is the fastest speed I have seen mentioned so far.

 

[rfjustin]

I read a post earlier and it made me wonder what the fastest documented speed is during an amateur rocket flight? I checked the TRA records page and the only records I found are altitude related. My definition of documented is actual speed measured from an onboard device and recovered after a successful flight.

I believe I've seen posts with data to document flights in the M5 region but I'm curious what the responses will be. I'm just curious what people have accomplished. I have zero intentions of trying to fly anywhere close to M3+ in my lifetime.

I searched the forum and found reference to M5.2 speed in a flight by Ky Michaelson. That is the fastest speed I have seen mentioned so far.

I don't want to derail your thread, but Ky's flight was not in the amateur realm.

@Kip_Daugirdas might have the well deserved win here at mach 4.2.

 

[Neutronium95]

The European group lead by @Andrej at BALLS last year flew two space shot attempts. On the second flight, the sustainer motor lit right at booster burnout, and from what I've heard the sustainer went on to hit 1.8 km/s. It wasn't recovered, but it certainly got going crazy fast. I hope they try again with more reliable electronics.

Kip's flight is extremely impressive, but his preference for long burning motors, and the long coast before ignition of the second stage reduces the peak velocity a ton.


Edit: Forgot to link the TRF thread about the project.

 

[wsume99]

I don't want to derail your thread, but Ky's flight was not in the amateur realm.

@Kip_Daugirdas might have the well deserved win here at mach 4.2.

Good point. Now I'll be diving down the black hole of what defines "amateur model rocketry". I believe it is S impulse and below but I need to confirm.

EDIT - Found this on the FAA page: To qualify as an amateur rocket, the launch must be suborbital, not have any humans onboard, remain under 150 km (93.2 statute miles), and have a total impulse under 200,000 lb-sec (889,600 Newton seconds).

S impulse would be the limit. Also kinda funny they specified no humans onboard. Apparently the FAA has no problem with livestock onboard. (Yes I know TRA & NAR prohibit more than just humans)

 

[SolarYellow]

Supersonic speed is much more difficult to measure reliably than apogee, particularly with civilian electronics.

 

[wsume99]

Supersonic speed is much more difficult to measure reliably than apogee, particularly with civilian electronics.

Yeah, all I can ask for really is what the device reported. Whether or not that was an accurate measurement of the real speed is a different story. So less than official but better than a baseless claim.

 

[Neutronium95]

Good point. Now I'll be diving down the black hole of what defines "amateur model rocketry". I believe it is S impulse and below but I need to confirm.

EDIT - Found this on the FAA page: To qualify as an amateur rocket, the launch must be suborbital, not have any humans onboard, remain under 150 km (93.2 statute miles), and have a total impulse under 200,000 lb-sec (889,600 Newton seconds).

S impulse would be the limit. Also kinda funny they specified no humans onboard. Apparently the FAA has no problem with livestock onboard. (Yes I know TRA & NAR prohibit more than just humans)

CSXT definitely met the FAA requirements to be legally an amateur flight. I do feel that it's important to distinguish between projects like CSXT or USC RPL, which have six figure budgets and massive teams from people like Kip who is working alone out of his garage.

Even of they're technically an amateur group, I feel like CSXT was practically much closer to being a small aerospace company. I don't know the finer details, but Up Aerospace grew out of CSXT, and from what I understand the 2014 CSXT reflight was a rebranded Up Aerospace rocket.

 

[wsume99]

CSXT definitely met the FAA requirements to be legally an amateur flight. I do feel that it's important to distinguish between projects like CSXT or USC RPL, which have six figure budgets and massive teams from people like Kip who is working alone out of his garage.

Even of they're technically an amateur group, I feel like CSXT was practically much closer to being a small aerospace company. I don't know the finer details, but Up Aerospace grew out of CSXT, and from what I understand the 2014 CSXT reflight was a rebranded Up Aerospace rocket.

I completely get your point. I my mind when I think amateur I'm think along the lines of what Kip has done. The FAA definition would technically allow SpaceX or even NASA to launch an amateur rocket. It's a definition but not one that really captures the essence of being an amateur rocketeer IMO. I suppose they are defining the bounds of the rocket though, not the person(s) who built it.

 

[OverTheTop]

IIRC one of our Aussie flyers got to M3.6 with an O3400 a few years back.

 

[mtnmanak]

Good point. Now I'll be diving down the black hole of what defines "amateur model rocketry". I believe it is S impulse and below but I need to confirm.

EDIT - Found this on the FAA page: To qualify as an amateur rocket, the launch must be suborbital, not have any humans onboard, remain under 150 km (93.2 statute miles), and have a total impulse under 200,000 lb-sec (889,600 Newton seconds).

S impulse would be the limit. Also kinda funny they specified no humans onboard. Apparently the FAA has no problem with livestock onboard. (Yes I know TRA & NAR prohibit more than just humans)

889,600 Ns is solidly in the T range:

 

[VernK]

Good point. Now I'll be diving down the black hole of what defines "amateur model rocketry". I believe it is S impulse and below but I need to confirm.

EDIT - Found this on the FAA page: To qualify as an amateur rocket, the launch must be suborbital, not have any humans onboard, remain under 150 km (93.2 statute miles), and have a total impulse under 200,000 lb-sec (889,600 Newton seconds).

Evolution Space lanched a full S-motor to Mach 5.2 but I’m not sure that was really in the spirit of being an “amateur flight“.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/kate-in-space.179559/

 

[Conway Stevens]

Evolution Space lanched a full S-motor to Mach 5.2 but I’m not sure that was really in the spirit of being an “amateur flight“.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/kate-in-space.179559/

Evolution Space is a Funded by investor company doing it as a business... for me that isnt the realm of Amateur at that point. Thats the Pro leauge. Same as Ky's CSXT flight built by Up-Aerospace. A professional company did it Ky put his name and money to it as investor. But that's my opinion.. and i feel plenty others.

 

[rfjustin]

Evolution Space is a Funded by investor company doing it as a business... for me that isnt the realm of Amateur at that point. Thats the Pro leauge. Same as Ky's CSXT flight built by Up-Aerospace. A professional company did it Ky put his name and money to it as investor. But that's my opinion.. and i feel plenty others.

That pretty much nails it. Near as I can tell the only "major" difference between UP Aerospace current Space Loft vehicles and the CSXT flight from 2004 was the motor. CSXT motor was headed up by the very capable Derek Deville with the collaboration of other folks from EAC (Kory Kline?) along with Jerry Larson (current President of UP Aerospace). Link to EAC work for CXST from 2004: http://www.hybrids.com/csxt.htm

Further validates this was more of a professional effort not amateur, but it was still bloody awesome either way.

 

[Antares JS]

I don't know, in my mind, if you're not planning to profit from it and doing it just because you love it, that fits the definition of "amateur," whose root, after all, is the Latin verb "amare," meaning "to love." I would give the speed record to Ky Michaelson and CXST.

 

[Conway Stevens]

I don't know, in my mind, if you're not planning to profit from it and doing it just because you love it, that fits the definition of "amateur," whose root, after all, is the Latin verb "amare," meaning "to love." I would give the speed record to Ky Michaelson and CXST.

If you were looking to say build a car. Set the world land speed record (if youve seen the land speed record cars you know they are all custom) but instead of you building it... you contracted and paid GM, Ford or insert automotive manufacturer here... they built the whole thing. All you did was supply money. Is it really you as an amateur that set the record? Or is it the professional car manufacturer? Im not taking away that what was done is awesome... but lets compare that to what Kip or Jim Jarvis or several others have done without any financial big company backing. There is a difference between a company thats doing it as a business building it for someone vs someone that built it themselves.

 

[Antares JS]

If you were looking to say build a car. Set the world land speed record (if youve seen the land speed record cars you know they are all custom) but instead of you building it... you contracted and paid GM, Ford or insert automotive manufacturer here... they built the whole thing. All you did was supply money. Is it really you as an amateur that set the record? Or is it the professional car manufacturer? Im not taking away that what was done is awesome... but lets compare that to what Kip or Jim Jarvis or several others have done without any financial big company backing. There is a difference between a company thats doing it as a business building it for someone vs someone that built it themselves.

I was under the impression that the original 2004 CXST success leaned more homemade. They had financial backing but did the work themselves. Am I incorrect about that?

 

[Conway Stevens]

I was under the impression that the original 2004 CXST success leaned more homemade. They had financial backing but did the work themselves. Am I incorrect about that?

Not what i understood and was told by several involved.

 

[Antares JS]

Not what i understood and was told by several involved.

Disregard what I said then.

 

[wclaybaugh2]

I read a post earlier and it made me wonder what the fastest documented speed is during an amateur rocket flight? I checked the TRA records page and the only records I found are altitude related. My definition of documented is actual speed measured from an onboard device and recovered after a successful flight.

I believe I've seen posts with data to document flights in the M5 region but I'm curious what the responses will be. I'm just curious what people have accomplished. I have zero intentions of trying to fly anywhere close to M3+ in my lifetime.

I searched the forum and found reference to M5.2 speed in a flight by Ky Michaelson. That is the fastest speed I have seen mentioned so far.

The 1996 RRS Dart hit Mach 4.2 at 12,000 feet, radar measured. Small team led and funded by Dave Crisalli.

See Chuck Roger’s analysis on the RASAero site.

Bill

 

[UPscaler]

Manny Ballestero and Steve Heller flew a rocket to over Mach 5 (and 87Gs at takeoff) at BALLS a few years ago. It delaminated the nosecone at that speed, but it made it there according to the onboard electronics.

Braden

 

[rfjustin]

Manny Ballestero and Steve Heller flew a rocket to over Mach 5 (and 87Gs at takeoff) at BALLS a few years ago. It delaminated the nosecone at that speed, but it made it there according to the onboard electronics.

Braden

Where did the data come from? You mean to tell me that a nose cone that collapsed at speed maintained data that is not corrupted? Sorry buddy, gonna call bullshit on this one...

 

[robopup]

Where did the data come from? You mean to tell me that a nose cone that collapsed at speed maintained data that is not corrupted? Sorry buddy, gonna call bullshit on this one...

If the altimeter survived well enough to pull data, I don't necessarily see the problem here. Perhaps if you blindly called some max() function on the speed data then sure. But I can imagine scenarios where the rocket hits some fast speed, shreds, the altimeter survives, and you can see the max speed pre shred in the data curve after the fact. I'd be even more inclined to believe it if the altitude/speed/acceleration data from the altimeter lined up with sims of the flight.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, this exact scenario happened to me. I folded a nosecone (poor construction, not particularly high speeds, happened at ~mach 2) and the rocket continued on its merry way to ~20k ft (if you believe the data, I don't have any reason not to, looking at the curve). The rocket (sans nosecone) was a fairly easy recovery and otherwise intact, but I remember spending the better part of an afternoon picking up little pieces of carbon fiber nosecone off the playa. Here's the plot:

EDIT2: Better plot including speed data:

 

[wclaybaugh2]

If you were looking to say build a car. Set the world land speed record (if youve seen the land speed record cars you know they are all custom) but instead of you building it... you contracted and paid GM, Ford or insert automotive manufacturer here... they built the whole thing. All you did was supply money. Is it really you as an amateur that set the record? Or is it the professional car manufacturer? Im not taking away that what was done is awesome... but lets compare that to what Kip or Jim Jarvis or several others have done without any financial big company backing. There is a difference between a company thats doing it as a business building it for someone vs someone that built it themselves.

I don’t want to hijack this thread but I do have a historical interest in this ongoing discussion of “What makes it amateur?”.

I apologize in advance for any offense these comments might generate: I am not trying to be either offensive or even controversial; this is a question I have been engaged by for 30 years, and I hope I might be helpful in short circuiting a lot of often fraught discussion with these observations:

Based on your example, I’m left to wonder if it is OK for me to purchase my rocket motors or if that means mine is no longer an “amateur” effort? Or is there a hierarchy of “amateur-ness” in which building your own motor is more amateur than buying it? What about nose cones?

My point here is that there is a near infinitely parsable “holiness” of “amateur-ness”. I get the view that the Kip in his shop is “more amateur” than Ky burning through something close to $1 million of other peoples money (over multiple attempts). [Although I am inclined to note—in passing—that spending that much over multiple flights for that goal seems—to me—self-evidently amateur.]

I thought it—at the time—very useful for the USG to define an amateur rocket; and I am inclined to a bias in favor of just using that definition. But I also recognize that 20 years of technological and market evolution today make reaching 100 km (or Mach 5, or whatever….) much lower cost and much more in reach of high-end amateurs.

I don’t have an opinion on this question of “What makes it amateur?”. I do want to suggest that what can be done today for ten-ish thousands of dollars may not be comparable to what cost hundreds of thousands twenty years ago…and that trying to compare projects across that gap means failing to understand what was then amateur, or is now, and—particularly—what will be in 20 more years.

Lastly, as an aside, I am aware of what the RRS Dart project cost. It is not my business to disclose other peoples finances and I will not here do. I am comfortable observing that that project cost much, much less than six figures in then dollars.

Again, let me apologize in advance for any offense these comments may cause; let me also apologize to the OP for posting comments that are only indirectly related to his initial question.

Bill

 

[Conway Stevens]

I don’t want to hijack this thread but I do have a historical interest in this ongoing discussion of “What makes it amateur?”.

I apologize in advance for any offense these comments might generate: I am not trying to be either offensive or even controversial; this is a question I have been engaged by for 30 years, and I hope I might be helpful in short circuiting a lot of often fraught discussion with these observations:

Based on your example, I’m left to wonder if it is OK for me to purchase my rocket motors or if that means mine is no longer an “amateur” effort? Or is there a hierarchy of “amateur-ness” in which building your own motor is more amateur than buying it? What about nose cones?

My point here is that there is a near infinitely parsable “holiness” of “amateur-ness”. I get the view that the Kip in his shop is “more amateur” than Ky burning through something close to $1 million of other peoples money (over multiple attempts). [Although I am inclined to note—in passing—that spending that much over multiple flights for that goal seems—to me—self-evidently amateur.]

I thought it—at the time—very useful for the USG to define an amateur rocket; and I am inclined to a bias in favor of just using that definition. But I also recognize that 20 years of technological and market evolution today make reaching 100 km (or Mach 5, or whatever….) much lower cost and much more in reach of high-end amateurs.

I don’t have an opinion on this question of “What makes it amateur?”. I do want to suggest that what can be done today for ten-ish thousands of dollars may not be comparable to what cost hundreds of thousands twenty years ago…and that trying to compare projects across that gap means failing to understand what was then amateur, or is now, and—particularly—what will be in 20 more years.

Lastly, as an aside, I am aware of what the RRS Dart project cost. It is not my business to disclose other peoples finances and I will not here do. I am comfortable observing that that project cost much, much less than six figures in then dollars.

Again, let me apologize in advance for any offense these comments may cause; let me also apologize to the OP for posting comments that are only indirectly related to his initial question.

Bill

I think the difference in my example i was trying to make is this.... doesnt matter a Comercial motor or research. Doesnt matter if you bought a kit or made your own components as all of it can be amateur. What i think matters is investors, level of professional work involved if its a company doing it or looking to do it as a business, or.... were you really actually involved in the making of said project or did you just pay someone/business to build it all and then you put your name on it at that point its a business venture not an amateur. If i had GM build me a car then i go out get a driver then a record is set.... did i do it? And definitely dont mean any offense or disrespect to anyone. Just an observation that appears to be of opinion to many out there

 

[StreuB1]

The only team that can claim fastest would be George Garbodens boosted dart. Reason, it was officially tracked by doppler radar skin reflection of the booster and dart, together as an assembly and after separation. There is no other means of directly measuring velocity than by radar in this type of application. Lets not talk about where the radar came from, but it was absolutely radar skin tracked with a mobile doppler unit.

As mentioned prior, speeds above M3 become very very hard to correlate with any of the technologies we use. Its close, but there are errors in it and those errors can be rather large at times.

After that would be Kip and the reason I would say that his speeds stick, even with the potential for error, is due to the fact that he DID use long burn motors and the DUT was exposed to those velocities for VERY long time periods. Those very long burns allowed the software to get long long LOOOOOONG integration times on the accelerometer readings and long differential times on the barometric readings. This helps to dramatically improve accuracy of the result and swamp out local anomalies in the data.

Rockets that "blow their load" in 3 seconds and under a few thousand feet cannot accurately derive velocities as high as M4+ and do it reliably.

CSXT was professional rocketry, I had close friends on that team. It was not done in a garage by amateurs and it had SERIOUS funding, deep into the 6-digit region. Either way it was 1000% amazing.

 

[wclaybaugh2]

The only team that can claim fastest would be George Garbodens boosted dart. Reason, it was officially tracked by doppler radar skin reflection of the booster and dart, together as an assembly and after separation. There is no other means of directly measuring velocity than by radar in this type of application. Lets not talk about where the radar came from, but it was absolutely radar skin tracked with a mobile doppler unit.

As mentioned prior, speeds above M3 become very very hard to correlate with any of the technologies we use. Its close, but there are errors in it and those errors can be rather large at times.

After that would be Kip and the reason I would say that his speeds stick, even with the potential for error, is due to the fact that he DID use long burn motors and the DUT was exposed to those velocities for VERY long time periods. Those very long burns allowed the software to get long long LOOOOOONG integration times on the accelerometer readings and long differential times on the barometric readings. This helps to dramatically improve accuracy of the result and swamp out local anomalies in the data.

Rockets that "blow their load" in 3 seconds and under a few thousand feet cannot accurately derive velocities as high as M4+ and do it reliably.

CSXT was professional rocketry, I had close friends on that team. It was not done in a garage by amateurs and it had SERIOUS funding, deep into the 6-digit region. Either way it was 1000% amazing.

Why is there any mystery about the Doppler Radar on the RRS Dart Launch?

The radar’s use was donated my a large aerospace company that happened at the time to have under contract a Dutch company that had a highly transportable Doppler radar.

The two Dutch fellows who operated that system arrived on site the day before the launch and were fully set up that evening (the whole system fit in the back of a rental SUV). They were packed and away the following evening (launch was a bit after noon, as I recall).

I don’t know why that system was in the US at the time but I assume that it being available was due to the usual schedule delays that are common to aerospace projects and that Dave Crisalli was able to talk the big company into covering a couple of days travel (or maybe he covered the travel…I don’t know) because they were already paying for those folks standing around anyway.

Bill

 

[wclaybaugh2]

I think the difference in my example i was trying to make is this.... doesnt matter a Comercial motor or research. Doesnt matter if you bought a kit or made your own components as all of it can be amateur. What i think matters is investors, level of professional work involved if its a company doing it or looking to do it as a business, or.... were you really actually involved in the making of said project or did you just pay someone/business to build it all and then you put your name on it at that point its a business venture not an amateur. If i had GM build me a car then i go out get a driver then a record is set.... did i do it? And definitely dont mean any offense or disrespect to anyone. Just an observation that appears to be of opinion to many out there

Conway:

Thanks. The view that if it is a corporate activity it is not amateur seems defensible to me.

I’m less certain that just spending a pile of money means it is not amateur: if I spend $1000 per month on rocketry than after 10 years I’ve spent six figures…does that mean I am not an amateur?

Or consider a large University with a billionaire sponsor…do those facts mean their activity is not amateur despite their staffing being entirely students?

Lastly, look ahead: if in five years (or 20) anyone at all can buy a Loki (say) kit that does Mach 5 / 100 km / whatever is building that kit amateur rocketry or has it become something else, “hobby rocketry” perhaps?

It seems to me perfectly possible to spend very large amounts of money while remaining an amateur, either because one’s work is amateurish in the negative sense or because one is doing very high end technical work (a fully reusable solid rocket nozzle, say) in the positive sense of amateur.

I don’t see that level of funding alone makes someone or some project professional. It does seem to me possible that when something becomes sufficiently low cost it stops being amateur and becomes simply commonplace.

Bill

 

[StreuB1]

Why is there any mystery about the Doppler Radar on the RRS Dart Launch?

The radar’s use was donated my a large aerospace company that happened at the time to have under contract a Dutch company that had a highly transportable Doppler radar.

The two Dutch fellows who operated that system arrived on site the day before the launch and were fully set up that evening (the whole system fit in the back of a rental SUV). They were packed and away the following evening (launch was a bit after noon, as I recall).

I don’t know why that system was in the US at the time but I assume that it being available was due to the usual schedule delays that are common to aerospace projects and that Dave Crisalli was able to talk the big company into covering a couple of days travel (or maybe he covered the travel…I don’t know) because they were already paying for those folks standing around anyway.

Bill

There was never mystery, only who actually knew the facts and didn't assume that it was hired or was a full rig that was procured via Dave's, Brian's, or Tom's, day jobs or contacts via their day jobs. There was a scuttlebutt about just that not long after the project story was written and before it was posted if I recall that decried just that. When in reality it was their jobs that allowed the Dutch company to find out about their launch and ask to come and try their rig out on it. That is from memory bare in mind, and that was a long long time ago and I was barely no longer a teenager at that time. Wait....no, still was a teenager. Part of that might been a bit hearsay, though the information came from a reliable source and fellow RRS member.

IIRC as well, the radar it was for testing, not actually hired for a project. Its size was the most amazing thing at that time and its portability.

IIRC2 there were some that were trying to jerry-rig the F4 Phantom low pulse radar for amateur tracking purposes but it never materialized and access to those units was "accidental" via a scraping company that will remain nameless.

 

[StreuB1]

One thing to mention regarding my above comment about the F4 Phantom's radar.

The F4's radar unit is relatively special in that the radar unit, its antenna, and the controller are able to be completely separated and operated outside the purview of the aircraft. This makes it very easy to use on its own as long as you know how to use them, operate them, control them, etc. Its not as easy as hookup XYZ voltage at XYZ Hz and it works. But its not as complex as others that are integrated into the aircrafts subsystems and are required to operate.

As well, the F4's radar antenna has a nice feature in that if you disconnect the actuators, you can guide it manually in a manner called "Spotlighting."

Ok, enough information from me........

 

[jsdemar]

I had a two-stager go to M3.7 by accident. It was supposed to stay around M3 but staged early.

My interpretation of amateur rocketry (FWIW):

Non-commercial, amateur rocketry
High Power Model Rocketry (HPR), kits or scratch built:

NAR/TRA with commercial motors.​

High power research rocketry (TRA insured):

HPR with an individual's homemade propellant with no sponsors.​

HPR with homemade propellant, group of individuals with no sponsors.​

Non-sponsored amateur rocketry:

TRA research rocketry with homemade propellant and approved exceptions to fly at remote locations.​

Individual or group, self-insured, homemade propellant, no commercial sponsors.​

This includes teams with members who have related professions, but no use of company assets.​

Sponsored amateur rocketry:

TRA or self-insured rocketry, individual(s) with professional sponsors for funding or loaned assets.​

This includes teams from educational institutions.​

​

Commercial, non-amateur, Rocketry:

FAA definition:
Total impulse >889,600 Ns-sec or altitude >150km, comply with 14 CFR Chapter III.​

Common definition:​

Any rocket flight operated by a business entity, for profit, or for research & development.​

This does not include rocket flights sponsored by a business solely for brand recognition.​

This does not include rocket flights by individuals who are doing a demo for an HPR company.​

I think most people accept the category "Non-sponsored amateur rocketry" (above) as the authentic, classic definition for records or categories of achievement. Super special is that category done solely by one individual.