High altitude liquid rocket

[zburnt]

I am trying to start on making a liquid engine for a high altitude rocket (hopefully 200-300km). I think the best place to start would be working on an engine that could generate the required thrust. I think the rocket will weigh around 200 kg, maybe closer to 300. The basic engine design I have decided on is kerosene and rfna (red fuming nitric acid). I will use aluminium for most parts of the engine, and then graphite for the nozzle/combustion chamber. There will be 3 tanks, 1 for kerosene, 1 for rfna, and 1 for compressed gas (prob. nitrogen). I would then have lines connecting rfna and kerosene to the reaction chamber (maybe using multiple injectors, like a line of pipe with many holes in it to mix the fuel and gas well). Then compressed gas would force the liquids out the tanks. I would have valves to control it all, and servos to electronically control the valves. Is this a good design to build and test for static fires, or is there something I am missing. Appreciate the help.

 

[jsdemar]

The type of rocketry you are describing is not covered within this forum. Join the Arocket mailing list:
http://www.arocketry.net/forum.html

 

[zburnt]

The type of rocketry you are describing is not covered within this forum. Join the Arocket mailing list:
http://www.arocketry.net/forum.html

I've seen replies like this before, however I have also seen some people answer. I mostly posted this to cover all of my bases. I am not expecting most people to answer. I would just like to hear some opinions on this forum, as I think it is one of the biggest. I have tried other forums/sites that could be helpful, though not that one. Thanks, I will try it out

 

[wclaybaugh2]

I am trying to start on making a liquid engine for a high altitude rocket (hopefully 200-300km). I think the best place to start would be working on an engine that could generate the required thrust. I think the rocket will weigh around 200 kg, maybe closer to 300. The basic engine design I have decided on is kerosene and rfna (red fuming nitric acid). I will use aluminium for most parts of the engine, and then graphite for the nozzle/combustion chamber. There will be 3 tanks, 1 for kerosene, 1 for rfna, and 1 for compressed gas (prob. nitrogen). I would then have lines connecting rfna and kerosene to the reaction chamber (maybe using multiple injectors, like a line of pipe with many holes in it to mix the fuel and gas well). Then compressed gas would force the liquids out the tanks. I would have valves to control it all, and servos to electronically control the valves. Is this a good design to build and test for static fires, or is there something I am missing. Appreciate the help.

What John said:

FAA regulations specify that no “amateur” rocket can exceed 150 km. Flying above that altitude under FAA jurisdiction requires a full-up professional launch license.

Bill

 

[zburnt]

I will be sure to keep it under that. That hopefully should also make the engine easier to build.

 

[G_T]

Honestly, you want to start at a fraction of that size, get some certs, work up through some good sized Balls launches, or FAR, then go for it. Otherwise, start with the Sutton book Rocket Propulsion Elements. That will give you an idea of one aspect of what you are thinking of getting into.

And be prepared for very serious sticker shock.

Gerald

 

[tsmith1315]

And maybe read a copy of Ignition!

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ignition-john-d-clark/1103164169

 

[zburnt]

Honestly, you want to start at a fraction of that size, get some certs, work up through some good sized Balls launches, or FAR, then go for it. Otherwise, start with the Sutton book Rocket Propulsion Elements. That will give you an idea of one aspect of what you are thinking of getting into.

And be prepared for very serious sticker shock.

Gerald

This is kinda my plan, I’m working on a much smaller rocket right now (like f to g class). I have done a reasonable amnout of engineering (tinkering as a hobby) and some chemistry, so I thought a small engine (not attached to a rocket) could be an interesting project for getting into it. From what I have realized after posting is I should start smaller, but I would like to work on an engine.

 

[zburnt]

And maybe read a copy of Ignition!

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ignition-john-d-clark/1103164169

Thanks for they suggestion, this seems like a great resource. I will definitely get a copy

 

[dhbarr]

Nitric acid reacts violently with alcohols, alkalis, reducing agents, combustible materials, organic materials, metals, acids, cyanides, terpenes, charcoal, acetone and rocketeers.

What is your lab safety experience? Do you understand the difference between
Engineering controls
Administrative controls
Personal protective equipment ?

 

[zburnt]

Nitric acid reacts violently with alcohols, alkalis, reducing agents, combustible materials, organic materials, metals, acids, cyanides, terpenes, charcoal, acetone and rocketeers.

What is your lab safety experience? Do you understand the difference between
Engineering controls
Administrative controls
Personal protective equipment ?

I am aware of nitric acid’s volatility. I believe aluminum is resistant to nitric acid. That is what I will be using to store it. i will be sure to either learn more about how to do this kind of chemistry safely, or work with someone more experienced, or buy it. I do understand the difference between them. I think Ppe probably makes the most sense for something like this, as it is more of a 1 or 2 time thing than exposure if I worked with it. I will also definitely use a fume hood for nitric acid and wear the right gloves (or none at all)

 

[FredA]

The type of rocketry you are describing is not covered within this forum. Join the Arocket mailing list:
http://www.arocketry.net/forum.html

I don't think I've seen any action from arocket's mail list in a long while.
Most of the links on the site are broken.
Not sure how much good can be found there anymore.

 

[dhbarr]

I am aware of nitric acid’s volatility. I believe aluminum is resistant to nitric acid. That is what I will be using to store it. i will be sure to either learn more about how to do this kind of chemistry safely, or work with someone more experienced, or buy it. I do understand the difference between them. I think Ppe probably makes the most sense for something like this, as it is more of a 1 or 2 time thing than exposure if I worked with it. I will also definitely use a fume hood for nitric acid and wear the right gloves (or none at all)

Yeah, a hierarchy of controls isn't an either-or proposition. Please don't buy a bunch of acid right away.

 

[dhbarr]

I don't think I've seen any action from arocket's mail list in a long while.
Most of the links on the site are broken.
Not sure how much good can be found there anymore.

Activity is mostly on the mailing list.

 

[FredA]

Hmm.....I'm subscribed, or at least used to be, not sure I've seen any activity in a good while.
Not on the right machine right now to search my mail.

 

[zburnt]

is there any other amateur sites like that

 

[tsmith1315]

Hmm.....I'm subscribed, or at least used to be, not sure I've seen any activity in a good while.
Not on the right machine right now to search my mail.

I got 13 messages today, well over a thousand in the last year. Not as busy as it was a decade or two ago, but still active.

is there any other amateur sites like that

Join the mailing list John linked in post #2

 

[zburnt]

Yeah, a hierarchy of controls isn't an either -or proposition. Please don't buy a bunch of acid right away.

I’m not planning on it. My priority, at least right now, is engine design. Then I will work on cad, then maybe a version that uses air or hydrogen peroxide (which is still dangerous, but it is safer than rfna afaik. Then use acid

 

[dhbarr]

I’m not planning on it. My priority, at least right now, is engine design. Then I will work on cad, then maybe a version that uses air or hydrogen peroxide (which is still dangerous, but it is safer than rfna afaik. Then use acid

If I was going to something like this, I'd probably start w/ GOX à la https://spacha.github.io/How-to-Rocket/

But! Further discussion is not for this forum.

 

[G_T]

Ummm, there's a bit more to it than just using aluminum for the tank. You are missing some key factors. You aren't close to ready.

There is a lot more for you to learn first. Wherever you are, join a rocket club. Get certified and gain some experience. You'll gain valuable experience in the process. Start studying up on the engineering texts on the subject. If you don't have it or aren't already in the process, get degree(s) in appropriate fields.

I don't know your background. But there is a difference between wishful thinking - dreaming - and engineering. Dreaming is a good place to start. Science understands it, and engineering gets it done.

Liquid propellant rocket engines are no joke. When things go wrong, they can obliterate everything in their immediate area. You need to design for failure as well as for success. The engineering is a bit extreme. Learn from the past, rather than repeating it.

We routinely get people showing up on this forum with big dreams. That's cool. But we generally have to tell such people to slow down and get real, first.

Your dream is a good one. But such a journey will take years to decades. And unfortunately a pretty good budget.

Gerald

 

[Sooner Boomer]

You want to explore liquid fuel rocket engines? Start half-way; a hybrid. It used a liquid oxidizer (nitrous oxide), and a solid fuel (plastic, wax, cellulose, &c.).

 

[lakeroadster]

I don't understand the infatuation of spending hard earned greenbacks to launch something you'll likely never see again, and may result in you living under a bridge due to being sued for the damages said rocket caused.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I am trying to start on making a liquid engine for a high altitude rocket (hopefully 200-300km). I think the best place to start would be working on an engine that could generate the required thrust. I think the rocket will weigh around 200 kg, maybe closer to 300. The basic engine design I have decided on is kerosene and rfna (red fuming nitric acid). I will use aluminium for most parts of the engine, and then graphite for the nozzle/combustion chamber. There will be 3 tanks, 1 for kerosene, 1 for rfna, and 1 for compressed gas (prob. nitrogen). I would then have lines connecting rfna and kerosene to the reaction chamber (maybe using multiple injectors, like a line of pipe with many holes in it to mix the fuel and gas well). Then compressed gas would force the liquids out the tanks. I would have valves to control it all, and servos to electronically control the valves. Is this a good design to build and test for static fires, or is there something I am missing. Appreciate the help.

You have received good advice. I doubt that anything I have to say will make a difference, but I do have some questions:

1. What is your experience in building high power rockets in general?
2. Do you know the basics that are required for stable flight at the altitudes you’re talking about?
3. Do you know your way around a machine shop?
4. Do you know how to produce a drawing that includes tolerances, fit and finish?
5. Why RFNA?

There’s no reason you can’t accomplish most of what you described, but you must understand that it’s not an easy or quick task and it will almost certainly require a lot of capital. You don’t just go out to the garage and bolt together three tanks.

I’d like to suggest the following:
Get involved in high power rocketry through Tripoli. Build some rockets and get certified. Then learn about building solid rocket motors and hybrid rocket motors using safer chemicals than RFNA.

One of our members launched a rocket to 293,000 feet recently using two solid motors.

A past member, Woody Hoburg, is headed to the ISS as a NASA astronaut.

 

[ksaves2]

What John said:

FAA regulations specify that no “amateur” rocket can exceed 150 km. Flying above that altitude under FAA jurisdiction requires a full-up professional launch license.

Bill

Which indeed will cost one mucho dinero. (Read that as a lot of money.) RFNA? Jesus Christ, the tanks needed to resist that stuff would probably cost a fortune plus might need a license of some kind to purchase it outright. Nasty stuff.
Shoot they used to use it in Russian submarines for ICBMs I heard and I think it was responsible for some accidents.
If one has unlimited money to invest, by all means go for it but don't expect support from the amateur rocketry community.
Agree whole heartedly. Stick with APCP. The risks for mixing are so much more manageable than RFNA and kerosene.
Enlighten me all you who are smarter than me. Are there any commercial launch systems that still use that stuff? I thought it fell by the wayside years ago. An amateur using it? Sheesh. Kurt

 

[tsmith1315]

This beautiful LOX-Kerosene rocket took 20+ years to build and went to about 10,000'. Notice the ground support (blockhouse not shown):




https://www.watzlavick.com/robert/rocket/index.html

Follow the "Tests" link in the first line on that page for a few more pics.

 

[ksaves2]

This beautiful LOX-Kerosene rocket took 20+ years to build and went to about 10,000'. Notice the ground support (blockhouse not shown)
https://www.watzlavick.com/robert/rocket/index.html

Errrrr, ummmmm and how much did it cost? Sure if it was a College or University based educational program to train future engineers, I'd say have at it. Otherwise it would take someone with a lot of $$$$ to do it. The link said the owner bought a full-sized airplane to build and had to stop on it to get the rocket project done. I'd say obviously the party had a lot of disposable income to burn.
Good thing for students and future scientists to learn on in an academic environment. Somebody or some institution had to put up significant dollars for such a project. Private project? Someone would have to lay out a lot of money if starting from scratch.

Go 10k feet? I bet most amateurs in the L2 range could do a minimum diameter rocket to go that high for a lot less dollars.
L3's could even buy/do a commercial grain to go higher.

If they were an established mixer and the upfront costs for equipment written off a long time ago like in a club environment, would be a heck of a lot cheaper than doing all the stuff for a liquid rocket launch. Kurt

 

[jsdemar]

Errrrr, ummmmm and how much did it cost? Sure if it was a College or University based educational program to train future engineers, I'd say have at it. Otherwise it would take someone with a lot of $$$$ to do it. The link said the owner bought a full-sized airplane to build and had to stop on it to get the rocket project done. I'd say obviously the party had a lot of disposable income to burn.
Good thing for students and future scientists to learn on in an academic environment. Somebody or some institution had to put up significant dollars for such a project. Private project? Someone would have to lay out a lot of money if starting from scratch.

Go 10k feet? I bet most amateurs in the L2 range could do a minimum diameter rocket to go that high for a lot less dollars.
L3's could even buy/do a commercial grain to go higher.

If they were an established mixer and the upfront costs for equipment written off a long time ago like in a club environment, would be a heck of a lot cheaper than doing all the stuff for a liquid rocket launch. Kurt

Bob Watzlavick has been working on his liquid rocket project for nearly 20 years, completely on his own, in very meticulous steps. He didn't spend nearly as much over that time period as many hardcore HPR people have. There's no instant gratification as one gets from throwing $1000 at a glue-together fiberglass kit and an APCP M for a 10Kft joyride.

 

[cerving]

Another "I'm going to be Elon" thread...

 

[FredA]

Another "I'm going to be Elon" thread...

There's one in every college, I swear......
Wish prof's would have reality lessons too.
Instead we get prof's who want 4-month capstone projects that are way out of scope.

 

[zburnt]

Which indeed will cost one mucho dinero. (Read that as a lot of money.) RFNA? Jesus Christ, the tanks needed to resist that stuff would probably cost a fortune plus might need a license of some kind to purchase it outright. Nasty stuff.
Shoot they used to use it in Russian submarines for ICBMs I heard and I think it was responsible for some accidents.
If one has unlimited money to invest, by all means go for it but don't expect support from the amateur rocketry community.
Agree whole heartedly. Stick with APCP. The risks for mixing are so much more manageable than RFNA and kerosene.
Enlighten me all you who are smarter than me. Are there any commercial launch systems that still use that stuff? I thought it fell by the wayside years ago. An amateur using it? Sheesh. Kurt

Rfna could be resisted by either stainless steel. Also, I don’t believe there is a license required to by buy rfna, as I have found chemicals like anhydrous hydrazine that don’t require a license, but I could be wrong. And for the first (few) iteration(s) I will end up using hydrogen peroxide kerosene.

You have received good advice. I doubt that anything I have to say will make a difference, but I do have some questions:

1. What is your experience in building high power rockets in general?
2. Do you know the basics that are required for stable flight at the altitudes you’re talking about?
3. Do you know your way around a machine shop?
4. Do you know how to produce a drawing that includes tolerances, fit and finish?
5. Why RFNA?

There’s no reason you can’t accomplish most of what you described, but you must understand that it’s not an easy or quick task and it will almost certainly require a lot of capital. You don’t just go out to the garage and bolt together three tanks.

I’d like to suggest the following:
Get involved in high power rocketry through Tripoli. Build some rockets and get certified. Then learn about building solid rocket motors and hybrid rocket motors using safer chemicals than RFNA.

One of our members launched a rocket to 293,000 feet recently using two solid motors.

A past member, Woody Hoburg, is headed to the ISS as a NASA astronaut.

I’m planning to do get certified and build smaller rockets than this, and have started already. I’m planning on building a 2000N total impulse kerosene hydrogen peroxide engine, and scale it up to a much larger rfna engine later. I am using these 2 chemicals because I don’t have to do any cryo on the engine which will make it more simple.

I don't understand the infatuation of spending hard earned greenbacks to launch something you'll likely never see again, and may result in you living under a bridge due to being sued for the damages said rocket caused.

Why would you risk your life climbing Everest. Because you can. There’s no need to. Just like there is no need to build a rocket engine. This is something I want to do because I enjoy projects like this. Also, how would testing and launching something at FAR or Black Rock Desert get me sued.