- Joined
- May 11, 2021
- Messages
- 652
- Reaction score
- 389
What waiver did you have for your two flights at FAR?
How many people have built a space shot rocket?
- Thread starter NTP2
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Kip_Daugirdas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 555
Hahaha that’s a great name for one of their rockets or a yacht.
Jonathan McDowell did a great paper on the “Karman Line”. I have always preferred the 80km definition since it’s based on actual science: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576518308221At first I missed the word perigee and was shocked.Still impressive it didn't decay out of orbit immediately at that altitude. What launch and satellite was this? I'd like to read more.
Black Rock of the 1990s is not the same as the Black Rock of the 2020s. However, I believe the last ballistic return was the UP Aerospace - Go Fast rocket that flew in 2014. UP allows their booster section to return ballistic. This may have been a commercial waiver.
270,000 ft MSL. Not much higher than the FAR standing waiver (250,000 ft).
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,354
- Reaction score
- 5,567
Could you actually do a ballistic return using airbrakes, possibly deploying multiple larger ones in stages until your velocity was reduced enough to deploy some kind of drogue? Sounds doable to me... but difficult/expensive to test.
It was one of the early Discover (CORONA) series tests. I believe the launch vehicle was a Thor-Agena. The apogee wasn't much higher. At the time I could read the report, but not have a copy.At first I missed the word perigee and was shocked.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,192
- Reaction score
- 1,404
That was 1997, right?
Could you get that waiver today for that flight?
Certainly not under TRA.
Thanks for bringing that paper back to my attention. I'd read it long ago but had forgotten the mention of satellite perigees as low as 80km.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2020
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 161
Fred:
1996.
One could not get *that* waiver today because the waiver was for 133k feet which FAA / Western Region thought was as high as they could justify claiming any authority, (Because they had previously issued waivers to that altitude for RRI launches at Smoke Creek.)
I am not aware of any reason why one could not schedule a fully ballistic launch at Black Rock today (I’m happy to be corrected on this). Neither the FAA nor the BLM care how the hardware gets down. Indeed, as w/ the Evolution launch it seems possible that FAA might prefer ballistic return as it increases the probability of staying w/i any given waiver cylinder.
No, not under TRA.
Bill
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2020
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 161
The usual practice—as you likely know—is to toss out the laundry at peak.
For higher altitudes that can mean hitting low supersonic velocities on the way down. That in turn means needing a drogue or streamer that can survive the heating that comes w/ those velocities at the relevant altitudes.
If one does that engineering then I’m not aware of any reason you couldn’t use the varying of drag and cross-section to help an otherwise ballistic return drift in a desired direction given favorable winds.
Bill
- Joined
- May 11, 2021
- Messages
- 652
- Reaction score
- 389
For those of you interested, a link to the RRS flight can be found here:
https://rasaero.com/dloads/RRS 50 Statute Mile Boosted Dart.pdf
I read this article over and over again when it was first published, back when I was obsessed with HPR as a kid (not much has changed.)
The last bit is my favorite. Quoted below:
"Those of us involved in this project did not attempt the flight to set any new world records, nor do we claim any. We hope that this disavowal of any claim to any record will dissuade even those inevitable few who will feel obligated to besiege us with e-mails, letters, arguments, and diatribes about why this flight doesn't count or who went higher, better, faster than whom. We are not concerned by or with such arguments and would find them exceedingly tedious. So, for anyone out there who would like to claim any altitude record they like, we congratulate you in ad- vance and without argument. We did not seek publicity in advance of the flight and we do not seek it now. We tell the story of this effort and that day at the Black Rock Desert because of its value as an educational adventure for both the participants and those bystanders, and to give those who read this report a sense of the excitement of this flight. We also tell it because it is an entertaining story of stamina, lunacy, ingenuity, camaraderie, humor, and determination. And, it was worthy of note that a rag-tag team of private individuals working with private resources had designed, built, and flown a rocket capable of reaching the edge of space in just ten weeks. As is true in so many areas of life, it is not so much the reaching of a destination as it is the lessons of the journey that are of the greatest value. In our case, our journey took many of us 700 miles to the north... and somewhere close to 50 miles straight up. No matter how you look at it, it was a good day at Black Rock."
https://rasaero.com/dloads/RRS 50 Statute Mile Boosted Dart.pdf
I read this article over and over again when it was first published, back when I was obsessed with HPR as a kid (not much has changed.)
The last bit is my favorite. Quoted below:
"Those of us involved in this project did not attempt the flight to set any new world records, nor do we claim any. We hope that this disavowal of any claim to any record will dissuade even those inevitable few who will feel obligated to besiege us with e-mails, letters, arguments, and diatribes about why this flight doesn't count or who went higher, better, faster than whom. We are not concerned by or with such arguments and would find them exceedingly tedious. So, for anyone out there who would like to claim any altitude record they like, we congratulate you in ad- vance and without argument. We did not seek publicity in advance of the flight and we do not seek it now. We tell the story of this effort and that day at the Black Rock Desert because of its value as an educational adventure for both the participants and those bystanders, and to give those who read this report a sense of the excitement of this flight. We also tell it because it is an entertaining story of stamina, lunacy, ingenuity, camaraderie, humor, and determination. And, it was worthy of note that a rag-tag team of private individuals working with private resources had designed, built, and flown a rocket capable of reaching the edge of space in just ten weeks. As is true in so many areas of life, it is not so much the reaching of a destination as it is the lessons of the journey that are of the greatest value. In our case, our journey took many of us 700 miles to the north... and somewhere close to 50 miles straight up. No matter how you look at it, it was a good day at Black Rock."
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,161
- Reaction score
- 3,502
Spaceport America allows ballistic flights. It's preferred there because White Sands Missile Range is too close to count on recovery within Spaceport or BLM property.
FAR doesn't require recovery.
If someone arranges with BLM to launch independently at Black Rock, ballistic is ok. The FAA analysis is much simpler, so they don't care either.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,192
- Reaction score
- 1,404
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,161
- Reaction score
- 3,502
Intended recovery by design which fails ballistically is not the same as an intended ballistic recovery.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,192
- Reaction score
- 1,404
I get it - flying a t-shirt -vs- nothing.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,161
- Reaction score
- 3,502
No, not just a pretend intention, but a full standard dual-deploy recovery system... planned, but failed. As compared to submitting a flight profile to the FAA (and the launch range) where no recovery is intended at all.
A failed recovery and a crater is unfortunate for everyone, but it happens and it itself will not get you uninvited back to FAR. Otherwise FAR would be empty on weekends.
Ahhhh, once an object gets up high and wants to orbit, it has to tilt over and achieve 15k to 17k+ mph orbital velocity to stay in orbit. I believe that is why one sees commercial and NASA launches go off and curve upwards to orbit. They don't want to go "superfast" down low due to friction heating of skin surfaces by the denser air.Something to ponder:
How long will a satellite stay in orbit at 100 km (Karman Line)?
If your rocket goes to 99.9 km does that mean you have not made 'space'?
Even von Karman thought space starts lower than 100 km.
Neil Armstrong flew the X-15 to ~207,00' and needed reaction control rockets to control the vehicle...
The space shuttle needed to drop below 160,000' to make use of its wings.
Highest a balloon has reached was 176,000'
200,000' looks to me like space , from the above and pictures taken at that altitude
Once they get up high in the thinner air, "that's" when they poor on the coal to get to orbital velocity and eventually tilt over the trajectory for orbit. Orbital velocity must be achieved or the subject package will eventually come down. The oldest orbiting satellite is Vanguard 1 that was launched when I was 2 years old. That was in 1958. Communications were lost in 1964 but it's still up there along with Vanguard 2 and 3. (Though none are operational with no communications with earth.)
Amateur rockets go straight up and may achieve space but since they don't tilt over to reach orbital velocity, they come back down. It's simple physics that took stupidhead here years to realize. Kurt
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 993
Understated.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,161
- Reaction score
- 3,502
Above that altitude there’s nothing there to harm, but one shouldn’t brag about violating an FAA COA. This also applies to flying outside the waiver cylinder.
High Desert Rocketry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 916
- Reaction score
- 793
Most amateurs plan their rocket launch on a predetermined day far in advance of the launch date.
We've launched HABs (high altitude balloons) to over 100,000' many times in different weather (wind) conditions usually with students picking the date in advance rather than going when wind conditions are optimal for recovery.
Because of this, we've launched in 20+ mph ground winds and on days with virtually zero wind predicted to 80,000'. On that particular day with zero wind, we achieved 104,000' and the payload came down on chute the entire descent less than 1/2 mile away with a very light payload. On the 20+ day going through the jet stream, we recovered the payload over 100 miles away. Going through 80,000' of air with winds aloft can cause even a rocket to drift in its cylinder, especially if angled at liftoff. Perhaps high-flying rockets need to consider flight termination and or steerable recovery chutes.
Good day to launch:
Bad day to launch:
Regarding ballistic flights, I built a 'Black Box' to save my electronics from 'ballistic recoveries' and unfortunately the first 6 flights were nominal but I forgot to arm on the 7th flight and it came down ballistic at FAR. Two months later, a student found the nozzle sticking out of the ground. We dug up the 7-foot long rocket (now 3 feet long) ground off the smashed U-bolts on the Black Box, replaced the battery, and heard the flight computer beep out the altitude. I've had people ask if they could launch 2-stage rockets and not put in a recovery system in the booster to save weight and achieve a higher sustainer altitude at FAR and I've said 'No'. If trying to get to space by skimping on safety your design has problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_spaceflight
To me, when you are here you are in space:
We've launched HABs (high altitude balloons) to over 100,000' many times in different weather (wind) conditions usually with students picking the date in advance rather than going when wind conditions are optimal for recovery.
Because of this, we've launched in 20+ mph ground winds and on days with virtually zero wind predicted to 80,000'. On that particular day with zero wind, we achieved 104,000' and the payload came down on chute the entire descent less than 1/2 mile away with a very light payload. On the 20+ day going through the jet stream, we recovered the payload over 100 miles away. Going through 80,000' of air with winds aloft can cause even a rocket to drift in its cylinder, especially if angled at liftoff. Perhaps high-flying rockets need to consider flight termination and or steerable recovery chutes.
Good day to launch:
Bad day to launch:
Regarding ballistic flights, I built a 'Black Box' to save my electronics from 'ballistic recoveries' and unfortunately the first 6 flights were nominal but I forgot to arm on the 7th flight and it came down ballistic at FAR. Two months later, a student found the nozzle sticking out of the ground. We dug up the 7-foot long rocket (now 3 feet long) ground off the smashed U-bolts on the Black Box, replaced the battery, and heard the flight computer beep out the altitude. I've had people ask if they could launch 2-stage rockets and not put in a recovery system in the booster to save weight and achieve a higher sustainer altitude at FAR and I've said 'No'. If trying to get to space by skimping on safety your design has problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_spaceflight
To me, when you are here you are in space:
Last edited:
All objects want to fall back to earth and not orbit. If the Vanguard launch vehicle was launched on a vertical trajectory, the payload would reach approximately 5,000 miles altitude before falling back to earth.
Now, the kicker in the equation. Vanguard, launched along a gravity turn trajectory, achieves an orbital apogee of 2,466 miles.
Vertical flight testing is how North Korea tests their ICBM's. A vertical trajectory that reaches approximately 4,000 miles, equates to an ICBM distance capability.
I discovered this in high school.
