LDRS On the Science Channel - Monday July 5th

[Jerry Irvine]

Alternatively, they could use J1520 Vmax motors. Not only are they reliable, they're legal too.

I am strongly in favor of CTI but "legal" isn't exactly a TRA/Kosdon criterion, is it?

I may be "out" in the TRA world, but I have "article approvals" with "competent authorities" and "explosive classifications" and "you know who" does not.

There is legal then there is TRA blessed. Are they sometimes mutually exclusive?

Yep.

Jerry

https://v-serv.com/usr/motors/images.rr38-240-BK.htm

https://v-serv.com/usr/motors/L3000.html

 

[blackjack2564]

Hey at least I got a micro drag race on TV!......along with my signature byline!

It was better than I had anticipated and you have to remember folks the "sweet 16 race" was their baby, and all involved knew from the get go it would get most of the airtime. When Asked on air by Karrie about why I entered...I replied " cause I knew that their stupid little race would get more airtime than our N 10,000 which was a real drag race" The directer yelled cut and said " that will never make it off the floor in editing" I was then instructed to do another take and put a more "positive" spin on the 16 race.

I knew right then where all the airtime would be. After the fateful catoes of all the J-1999's the directors were in hog heaven stating they could not have asked for a better outcome! I then asked him how much they paid AT to dope the motors LOL That did not go over well either.

All in all I though it came off showing rocketry in an entertaining light.

True it did not live up to the expectations of true rocketry, but you must remember for the show it's all about sound bites and "good tv" which may not be "good rocketry" Just looking at all the stupid reality shows tells you where the add money goes.

Hopefully it will excite some young viewers whom after watching may get involved with rocketry and become the next generation of seekers and do'ers.

At least rocketry got another 15 minutes of fame.

 

[blackjack2564]

So Jerry.....

how was your return to LDRS? Have fun? Fly anything/

I stopped by your booth a few times [ I was just 1 down from you with Wildman] but no one was ever there. Only 1 table an an empty chair.

 

[Jerry Irvine]

I knew right then where all the airtime would be. After the fateful catoes of all the J-1999's the directors were in hog heaven stating they could not have asked for a better outcome! I then asked him how much they paid AT to dope the motors LOL That did not go over well either.

All in all I though it came off showing rocketry in an entertaining light.

In my own LDRS article on RP I also took special note of the e**ortech (I have been told this "cute term" is critical and was cause to be warned. That was hyper-sensitive on the part of moderators IMHO, but this does seem to be one of those sites that set a "high school" criterion then go toward 3rd grade at random times) J1999 mass-CATO as a spectacular and technically interesting event. Come on. That many, all at once, creating a rare debris field? That was special.

I diagnosed the motor design flaw less than 60 seconds after seeing a fuel grain.

LDRS-29 was a win-win for me. I was never in my own booth.

I submitted a post-LDRS article to RP we may see in a week or so.

I am preparing an article on the TV show. What I really want to do is co-author it with Heidi Backula.

Jerry

 

[RangerStl]

In my own LDRS article on RP I also took special note of the errortech J1999 mass-CATO as a spectacular and technically interesting event. Come on. That many, all at once, creating a rare debris field? That was special.

I diagnosed the motor design flaw less than 60 seconds after seeing a fuel grain.

LDRS-29 was a win-win for me. I was never in my own booth.

Jerry

Will be interesting to learn why the motors passed all their certification firings and yet failed at this launch event.

Does LDRS use some special method to ignite motors for a drag race? Were all motors using stock igniters?

 

[MaxQ]

Will be interesting to learn why the motors passed all their certification firings and yet failed at this launch event.

Does LDRS use some special method to ignite motors for a drag race? Were all motors using stock igniters?

I think there were some "creative" ignitors used in an attempt to win this "drag race'....IIRC thermite was mentioned.

I'm not sure if the Warp 9 propellent in combination with the thermite igniter was the culprit....as I haven't read up on the post mortems or if there were any reports made using the wreckage to verfy the theory or come to a conclusion....

Jerry...what did you see in the grain evidence?

Is it possbile the gremlin was in the grain, or the nozzle?

Seems that different motor casings were used, so maybe it wasn't those...

 

[blackjack2564]

Will be interesting to learn why the motors passed all their certification firings and yet failed at this launch event.

Does LDRS use some special method to ignite motors for a drag race? Were all motors using stock igniters?

No..... it's up to the fliers.

I and Tim used stock igniters as well as all the others that I saw. There were no sticks with thermite on them.

After recovering my grains after the cato[ blew off my rear 2 inches of motor]
and peeling the casting tube. You could see the flame front had traveled up the spirals, most likely causing it to over pressurize and blow the thing.

I saw a press release where At is using a different liner/casting tube [?] gluing 1 grain in, and using o-rings between the grains to fix the problem

 

[MaxQ]

No..... it's up to the fliers.

I and Tim used stock igniters as well as all the others that I saw. There were no sticks with thermite on them.

After recovering my grains after the cato[ blew off my rear 2 inches of motor]
and peeling the casting tube. You could see the flame front had traveled up the spirals, most likely causing it to over pressurize and blow the thing.

I saw a press release where At is using a different liner, gluing 1 grain in, and using o-rings between the grains to fix the problem

Which grain do they glue in?

O rings between the grains.......how do they install those?

 

[blackjack2564]

The release is on their Facebook page if you want all the details.

I believe it's the bottom one.That's how we do it in research to prevent the grain from collapsing under stress and being blow out the nozzle [spit the grain] or worse clogging it.

The user places the rings between each grain when assembling the motor.

Check with the face page to be sure. I'm old and my memer ......what was I saying?

 

[Jerry Irvine]

Will be interesting to learn why the motors passed all their certification firings and yet failed at this launch event.

I selected your particular post to answer the question because you asked it best.

1. The certification tests are static not dynamic.

2. This is something only someone with the friendly ear of Gary Rosenfield can find out, but did he use the same casting tubes for both the cert samples and the deliverables?

3. What is the binder % of Warp-9. I am guessing under 16%.

The outcome was technically awesome. That was sensational quality control for all of them to pop at the same altitude!

One thing for sure, it wasn't the casings, nozzles, ignitors (initiators), grain, or grain spacing.

Just Jerry

 

[kelltym88]

Yes, it was kind of bittersweet. There was a shot of me and my son after the first commercial break, so that was cool. The special projects and a tour of Mark's trailer was cool, but I agree it took away from what the event really was about.

I know it's for TV, but you could totally tell they edited crowd scenes with take offs, it was a different part of the day. All in all it was entertaining. And I didn't know that was crazy Jim, I talked with him briefly, but I didn't know who he was.

 

[kelltym88]

Hey Mark, of course you like it:
a) they spent 20 min on you & yours (by the way, you guys looked great!)
b) as you said, you have an appointment with them.

So you can't post any comments - you're biased!

Yeah! hahaha

Mario, where's all the pics you had from LDRS?

 

[stickershock23]

Will be interesting to learn why the motors passed all their certification firings and yet failed at this launch event.

Does LDRS use some special method to ignite motors for a drag race? Were all motors using stock igniters?

As mentioned the Igniters had nothing to do with it.

How did they make it through cert? when you take a test do you put on your BEST game.. then after the test you forget about things.. or just plain don't care anymore? Just a thought.

How many motors now have to be glued in, o'ringed forward seal disk added to etc AFTER they have been certified? Seems like quite a few.
These are thing done in EX motors to make a motor on the Edge or close to failure work.

 

[jsdemar]

As mentioned the Igniters had nothing to do with it.

How did they make it through cert? when you take a test do you put on your BEST game.. then after the test you forget about things.. or just plain don't care anymore? Just a thought.

How many motors now have to be glued in, o'ringed forward seal disk added to etc AFTER they have been certified? Seems like quite a few.
These are thing done in EX motors to make a motor on the Edge or close to failure work.

The dynamics of a high-g flight are not part of the static tests for certification. This is a typical problem with EX motors that worked well in static testing or big fat rockets, but fail in a high-performance flight. Grains will slump or shear under stress. The o-ring spacers help with the slumping (keeps the grain faces from becoming inhibited, causing an unplanned progressive burn). A strong binder with a good bonding agent and particle distribution will reduce shearing.

Second problem is that storage over time will degrade the bond of the propellant to the liner, especially if the liner is not pretreated, or the propellant is high solids, or there's an ingredient that migrates out.

-john

 

[Jerry Irvine]

A strong binder with a good bonding agent and particle distribution will reduce shearing.

Second problem is that storage over time will degrade the bond of the propellant to the liner, especially if the liner is not pretreated, or the propellant is high solids, or there's an ingredient that migrates out.

-john

I inspected the grains. They were homogeneous, smooth, well chemically bonded, and the storage time was about as short as possible since it is a new product and the loads discharged had to be sourced in CA, shortening the supply chain.

Last I checked Gary (his minions) does not pre-treat the casting tubes on consumer reloads, nor it is generally required.

I didn't observe any migration and I know what to look for.

None of the grains had any physical damage.

Now I have done everything EXCEPT tell Gary Rosenfield what the problem is with his certified, released, distributed, product that is failing widely, and helpfully, on television on the TV show most responsible for HPR awareness this year. He is welcome to pay me for that information.

Jerry

 

[stickershock23]

The dynamics of a high-g flight are not part of the static tests for certification. This is a typical problem with EX motors that worked well in static testing or big fat rockets, but fail in a high-performance flight. Grains will slump or shear under stress. The o-ring spacers help with the slumping (keeps the grain faces from becoming inhibited, causing an unplanned progressive burn). A strong binder with a good bonding agent and particle distribution will reduce shearing.

Second problem is that storage over time will degrade the bond of the propellant to the liner, especially if the liner is not pretreated, or the propellant is high solids, or there's an ingredient that migrates out.

-john

All great points. I just wonder why a manufacturer does not THINK about this possibility when they FIRST make a motor.. come on a J1999 you think everyone is going to use that in a short fat slow moving rocket? No WAy thats a altitude/speed motor. PERIOD. Personally I would go out and test the things in a minimum diam rocket myself a few times before I sold them to people. OR at least do these "mods" (lack of a good word) to the motors before I sent them to test anyways.. because you KNOW it's going to need it.
Of course thats just my Opinion. I personally like to keep my customers happy with what they purchased and keep them coming back again and again.

On another note. (more on subject anyways) people were saying the show made us look a little stupid maybe. (simple terms) like when they said the motor had the power of a mustang V6 (Yeah I don't get it either) think about this.. They asked me to explain the difference between CP and CG easy right? then they said explain it like its a 4th grader you are explaining it to, and you have about 10 seconds to do it... without any drawings..

Thats why the "v6" analogy was a good quick easy, maybe a little stupid explanation.. to someone who know NOTHING about rockets. that gives a good image or idea of the power of the motor.

Another thing. Someone said they wished they had LESS time on the competition and more on individual rockets.. I agree. BUT look at it this way. you've never seen a rocket fly before.. you tune in.. say they film 20 different rockets and show their flights.. The camera frames said rockets. so you loose most of your Scale.. (they all look the same size) they all BOOM off the pad, so the image is mostly a blur... Bottom line if all flight go good you get..

Ohh look red rocket woosh or look green rocket woosh oh look orange rocket woosh oh look pink rocket woosh... If your watching you would be "thats boring " and tune it out. so the little "competition" and the odd rocks.. they change it up a bit, and the crashes and catos. keep people wondering whats next.. they stay tuned.. the show does good, and maybe they do it again.. and next time the people that didn't get on the show.. maybe they will get their chance..

 

[judo]

My wife liked Nibbles.

 

[Rocketman248]

Now I have done everything EXCEPT tell Gary Rosenfield what the problem is with his certified, released, distributed, product that is failing widely, and helpfully, on television on the TV show most responsible for HPR awareness this year. He is welcome to pay me for that information.

Jerry

Your generosity never ceases to amaze me.

 

[troj]

On another note. (more on subject anyways) people were saying the show made us look a little stupid maybe. (simple terms) like when they said the motor had the power of a mustang V6 (Yeah I don't get it either) think about this.. They asked me to explain the difference between CP and CG easy right? then they said explain it like its a 4th grader you are explaining it to, and you have about 10 seconds to do it... without any drawings..

Thats why the "v6" analogy was a good quick easy, maybe a little stupid explanation.. to someone who know NOTHING about rockets. that gives a good image or idea of the power of the motor.

Yup.

Just like their reference to "the closer to Z the letter is, the more powerful the motor is". It's a major over-simplification, but for the general public, it gets the point across.

They just care that a K is bigger than a J, which is bigger than an I, etc. They really don't want to hear about Newton-seconds, what a Newton is, etc.

-Kevin

 

[shreadvector]

Yup.

Just like their reference to "the closer to Z the letter is, the more powerful the motor is". It's a major over-simplification, but for the general public, it gets the point across.

They just care that a K is bigger than a J, which is bigger than an I, etc. They really don't want to hear about Newton-seconds, what a Newton is, etc.

-Kevin

Newtons are fine, but please get that active recovery system to work...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY3N-kERPpg&feature=related

 

[gpoehlein]

Yup.

Just like their reference to "the closer to Z the letter is, the more powerful the motor is". It's a major over-simplification, but for the general public, it gets the point across.

They just care that a K is bigger than a J, which is bigger than an I, etc. They really don't want to hear about Newton-seconds, what a Newton is, etc.

-Kevin

Actually, that's almost what I tell a lay person about motor size - just that an A will put something the size of an Alpha (I describe the Alpha's size here) up about 250 feet, then go on to explain that each letter is twice as powerful as the previous letter. That's about as much info as someone who isn't into our hobby can process and it gets the idea across.

BTW, Mark - that WAS a beautiful job on your model. And it flew really well!. Nice job! :clap:

 

[GregGleason]

I didn't come to watch a documentary.

I watched to be entertained and I was.

I think Discovery-Science put together a show that catered to the demographic they were trying to reach.

At least they didn't depict rocketeers as cartoon characters ... or worse.

Greg

 

[jdeveau]

...and I was. I figured that it was going to be a unabashed plug for the likes of Ky Michaelson, and to some extent, it was. But what I really didn't like (as someone already posted) was that it focused too much on the competition. From a casual viewer, one would have gotten the impression that drag races and flying stupid objects are what the event was about. The only really large rocket that they showed was the DarkStar. There were dozens of great flights of large rockets. I was hoping for an updated verison of the Argonia shows that Discovery did. Those shows were my first introduction to HPR and got me interested in the hobby. I'm now an L2 and work with large team projects. That is the essense of this hobby/sport and they spent way too little on that aspect and too much on contests, stupid-object rockets, and a few camera-hogging individuals. They didn't even talk about the levels of certification, etc, like they did in the old shows.

Just more reality-TV. That's all they know to do these days....

 

[stickershock23]

Actually, that's almost what I tell a lay person about motor size - just that an A will put something the size of an Alpha (I describe the Alpha's size here) up about 250 feet, then go on to explain that each letter is twice as powerful as the previous letter. That's about as much info as someone who isn't into our hobby can process and it gets the idea across.

BTW, Mark - that WAS a beautiful job on your model. And it flew really well!. Nice job! :clap:

Thanks Greg, it was a fun project. I only wish you could have seen th Airstarts better in the video. that really made the flight. although you can kind of see them it just does not do it justice!


When I tried to explain the CP CG for a 4th grader. I thought to myself.. im an idiot. but all in all it worked (but didnt air thankfully) My "quickie" was CG is where the rocket balances by weight (put rocket on finger to balance) but CP is where (if the rocket weighed NOTHING ) its drag is equal on both sides.

 

[Jerry Irvine]

People go to the races to see the crashes.

This worked.

Jerry

 

[kelltym88]

Your generosity never ceases to amaze me.

ROFL:roll:

On another note. people were saying the show made us look a little stupid maybe.

Now that I will disagree with. If anything it made us look a little crazy, but definitely not stupid. I would venture to guess that those who don't know about this hobby weren't thinkin' " hey we can do that." At least I hope so.

 

[judo]

It also made everyone look at least 10 pounds heavier.

 

[Der Red Max]

People go to the races to see the crashes.

I suppose they go to the hockey games to see the fights

 

[quickburst]

I didn't come to watch a documentary.

I watched to be entertained and I was.

I think Discovery-Science put together a show that catered to the demographic they were trying to reach.

At least they didn't depict rocketeers as cartoon characters ... or worse.

Greg

I have to agree with Greg. At first I was a little disappointed, then after it all sunk in I thought they did a pretty good job.

 

[stickershock23]

ROFL:roll:


Now that I will disagree with. If anything it made us look a little crazy, but definitely not stupid. I would venture to guess that those who don't know about this hobby weren't thinkin' " hey we can do that." At least I hope so.

I'll accept that. Stupid may have been a bad choice of words.