fyrfytr310
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 1
I will donate harnesses for this project......
Teddy
You guys are awesome!
I will donate harnesses for this project......
Teddy
First... subscribed... obviously!
Second, tried to get my school to do a 100k project, but of course $$ and policy were the front runners!
Third, a few questions...
1) Are you using the sustainer motor ignition to force the booster/sustainer separation,
or will it be a booster burnout separation / sustainer coast to ignition (boosted dart-ish)?
2) Have you approached the idea of putting the sustainer ignition electronics behind the motor
(hardened of course against the blast) within the booster?
Treat it essentially as an overgrown ejection ignition event? (have a few ideas about that, thanks SHC)
Willing to donate brain cells and design assist if you'd be willing;
might be able to enlist some help here in AL also!!
Thanks
fm
ps. obh, i'll be buying some harnesses from ya for my own birds, nice to see the support!!
Really. There is absolutely nothing to debate.There was a very long debate a while back about whether modifying commercial motors qualified as ex or was just not allowed. I don't want to rehash it, only to warn anyone doing so to do some research before hand.
If you have a manufacturer's part for a head end ignition forward closure for that casing, then it is a certified commercial motor. I fairly certain that not one of the 2000+ certified motors on the combined list employs head end ignition, so I am unaware of any motor manufacturer offer such a forward closure. But I could have missed one.
I can't answer for TRA TMT, but for NAR S&T, he would have to certify the HEI design with a hydrostatic proof test (for casing pressure integrity), and then submit a couple reloads for each casing size to be fired on the S&T test stand (for the purpose to illustrate functionality, and reliability). If the certification tests were successful, I would be willing to approve the HEI units for each of the casing diameters that were tested. They would be certified as a plugged motor, so electronic recovery would be required for these motors.Legit question here- Loki makes HEI capable forwards for 54 and 76
https://lokiresearch.com/secure/storeDetail.asp?id=737157636580
https://lokiresearch.com/secure/storeDetail.asp?id=737157636580
Are those considered certified for HEI, or would he have to submit them for approval and testing first?
It's very ambitious, and difficult, but your approach is correct: use sub-scale test flights as a proof of concept.Many of you followed the thread of my Rocketry Warehouse Terminator as I went through the build and then successfully flew it to achieve my Level 3 certification. For many, this is a goal that allows them to fly big and glorious rockets with fantastic displays of airpower and recovery systems.
I wanted my L3 for a different reason. I wanted to fly a rocket to 100,000' at least once during my lifetime. But here's the thing...I don't have a huge budget, so I need to do it on M power. It's possible. The math works. But I will have one shot at this... so I need to get it right the first time.
So this will be a very long-term thread. There will be gaps as I work on other projects, and then there will be flurries of activity. This will not be a single rocket build, but rather a series of builds to test designs, materials, build techniques, staging ideas, and more. Along the way, I hope to set some records. It would be kind of cool to be in the record book at least once in a while.
Ideas and insight are very welcome as I work through this challenge. I will need thought into electronics that can handle 100,000'+ altitudes, advanced recovery techniques with small transmitters, fitting in redundant electronics, transmitters, and a video cameras inside minimum diameter airframes, high-temp epoxy, and a whole bunch of stuff I probably haven't thought about.
But for now, I should start at the very beginning. A very good place to start. When you read you begin with "A B C." When you sing you begin with "Do Re Mi."
So my first design will be Do. The first note of the scale. The purpose of this design is to test two minimum diameter stages and determine these critical elements:
1. Can the motor serve as a coupler to hold stages together?
2. Can very thin telephone wire, epoxied to the outside of the airframe, be enough to ignite the sustainer motor?
Do will be first tested as a single stage to ensure that the sustainer is stable. It will fly on 6-grain 24mm G motors. Because it will ultimately push Mach 2, it will be too heavy to break the TRA single altitude G record. BUT, It will then attempt the H staged record. Then later the I staged record. Then possibly the J staged records. This will challenge the build techniques because with a full 640 NS, Do will go well past Mach 1.5, and with a full 1,280 NS, it will punch past Mach 2.
So this is Do set up with a CTI H123 booster and a G65 sustainer. Combined it is just under 320 NS, so it should qualify as an H-powered altitude record setter.
What do you think?
View attachment 293524
I can't answer for TRA TMT, but for NAR S&T, he would have to certify the HEI design with a hydrostatic proof test (for casing pressure integrity), and then submit a couple reloads for each casing size to be fired on the S&T test stand (for the purpose to illustrate functionality, and reliability). If the certification tests were successful, I would be willing to approve the HEI units for each of the casing diameters that were tested. They would be certified as a plugged motor, so electronic recovery would be required for these motors.
Personally, back on topic, I think Evan should grab a loki 76/8000 case, wait for Scott to get the new red baby N for that case ready, and stack a 54/4000 baby M on top of it. I have no idea if it'd hit 100K, but it'd be a hell of a show.
I will donate electronics for this project.
You guys are awesome!
This looks like fun. This one is over my head, but logistically id take two paths at the same time to get there. One a two stage tank to get used to staging MARSA gear, the other progressively larger two stage MD to get used to those builds.
It's very ambitious, and difficult, but your approach is correct: use sub-scale test flights as a proof of concept.
Your H impulse 2-stager is good first step. I would investigate using other engines however as the specific impulse of the one's you chose is low.
Ideally you want the first stage a light as possible, to maximize the mass and sectional density of the second stage. The will allow the second stage to coast higher and farther than a lower sectional density rocket as drag is determined by shape, and the retained momentum of the heavier upper stage will reducethe deceleration rate and allow for a higher velocity coast which leads to a higher apogee.
The higher the Isp of the propellant, the more ballast can be added to the second stage to maximize the coast distance.
It is looking more like the first project will focus on a 2-stage I rocket. I cannot seem to find 24mm nose cones and beeline trackers will not fit into a 24mm tube.
There are 3 3G-Pro29 reloads with higher specific impulse than the 4G-Pro29 reload you have proposed. Take the extra mass and put it in the second stage.
Similarly, you may gain retained momentum and suffer less gravity loss by using the Blue Streak or Pink reloads in the second stage instead of the long burn.
Make sure you run a lot of accurate sims. They will pay off in the end.
Looking forward to your flight report.
Cool. Motor ignition of the sustainer happens high enough that there should be little risk.Unless someone from TRA specifically says no, I doubt you'll have any issues flying head end at URRG. Id let it fly if I'm LD.
Exactly my next project. Black Rock, sometime 2017
And three-stage with the long 38? That's the maybe someday dream, anyhoo
Thanks for the quick reply.
To clarify for anyone else reading, I know these bulkheads were used when certifying the L1040 54/2800 and L2050 54/4000, so the part itself is legit, just asking Bob about the HEI feature and what it would take to certify. (Loki 54 and 76 are all plugged motors, so no delay concerns there).
But, as Bob said earlier, going HEI is good to go as EX. Personally, back on topic, I think Evan should grab a loki 76/8000 case, wait for Scott to get the new red baby N for that case ready, and stack a 54/4000 baby M on top of it. I have no idea if it'd hit 100K, but it'd be a hell of a show.
First... subscribed... obviously!
Second, tried to get my school to do a 100k project, but of course $$ and policy were the front runners!
Third, a few questions...
1) Are you using the sustainer motor ignition to force the booster/sustainer separation,
or will it be a booster burnout separation / sustainer coast to ignition (boosted dart-ish)?
2) Have you approached the idea of putting the sustainer ignition electronics behind the motor
(hardened of course against the blast) within the booster?
Treat it essentially as an overgrown ejection ignition event? (have a few ideas about that, thanks SHC)
Willing to donate brain cells and design assist if you'd be willing;
might be able to enlist some help here in AL also!!
Thanks
fm
ps. obh, i'll be buying some harnesses from ya for my own birds, nice to see the support!!
Cool. Motor ignition of the sustainer happens high enough that there should be little risk.
Yep. Just program an "altitude@time" or some other such lockout and we've got the space to be very comfortable with staging.
The booster recovery will be fired from 2 pair of timers
Why timers?
Pretty crude and require accurate sims.
What's wrong with a traditional altimeter taking care of apogee (or Dual-Deploy) for the booster.
I was concerned about space and wiring. There are timers are less than half the size of even the smallest DD altimeters. I also need a timer to fire the separation charge.
.You can fire the separation charges with a Marsa54L-MarsaNet. You have up to 9 channels and 9 independent events with the system. You can also do your booster recovery with a MrfPyro unit in the booster. One MrfPyro channel to fire the separation charge, the other MrfPyro channel to deploy the recovery after a set delay after separation.
Yes - use MarsaNet devices....skip all the wiring issues....
This is why I suggested them and you would be wise to take John up on his generous offered to donate.
Use a "flight computer" to make intelligent, real-time decisions about when to separate, ignite and deploy.
Timer's should be avoided....today's solutions are SO much better....safer....
Enter your email address to join: