Sugar rocket 23kft flight

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Andre

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Hi guys

This is my first post here on TRF. My name is Andrej and I'm from Slovenia (small country in central-eastern Europe). Here is a short description of my latest project that was launched a few days ago. The purpose of this project was to get some experience with making larger motors and some new building techniques (for me at least) that are required for higher performance rockets.
The entire rocket was built from aluminum and steel except for the nosecone which had to be RF transparent and was made from fiberglass. Since I know ex motor construction is not a welcomed theme here, I'm not going to go into much detail regarding motor itself, except for some very basic information. The entire rocket is actually just a rocket motor with a welded fin can attached on the aft end and a lenght of aluminum tube on the forward end which houses electronics and a parachute.
Rocket motor is 100 milimeters in diameter, has aluminum casing (EN AW 6060 alloy), steel nozzle (42CrMnO4 alloy) and aluminum head-end (EN AW 6082 alloy) with integrated pyrogen igniter. Sugar propellant is cast into five BATES grains, which are inhibited and insulated with an organic fibre/rubber composite. Motor is ignited with a head-end pyrogen igniter which is actually a small rocket motor with four sonic nozzles that shoot the hot gas down the core. When this igniter lights motor is up and running at full thrust in about 300 miliseconds.
Nosecone (3:1 ogive) was made from several layers of glass fibre/epoxy composite in a silicone rubber mould. Plug for a mould was machined from an aluminum bar stock on a CNC lathe.
Fins were cut from a 4,0mm thick plate (AlMg3 alloy), beveled and TIG welded to a short lenght of aluminum tube. Fincan screws on to the casing, entirely covering the nozzle. Aluminum coupler is used to connect the motor with the payload bay.
Avionics used was ARTS2 as a main flight computer and a Perfectflite Stratologger as a backup (set with 2 sec delay). Each altimeter had it's own power supply, switch and a 2,5 gram BP charge.
Recovery was done with a single 48 inch X-form chute deployed at apogee. Target descent rate was 60ft/s.
Nosecone housed a BigRedBee 2M GPS tracker running at 1Watt. Power was provided by lithium batteries. In addition to GPS a ComSpec AT-2B transmitter was attached to tubular nylon shockcord in case the GPS would malfunction. Nosecone was retained to the body tube with three 3,0mm diameter plastic shear pins.
Rocket was launched from a 3 meters long aluminum rail (45 x 45mm). Launch lugs were made from polyamide.
Motor was ignited with a wireless launch controler over a secure radio link.
The rocket was tracked with a Kenwood TM-D710E transceiver connected to AvMap G5 road navigator, as well as with ComSpec R-300 receiver.
The flight was nominal. Everything worked as planed. Rocket was recovered 2km away, thanks to light winds and small chute.
Some photos from the launch can be seen bellow including launch video (which is not very good, but is the only one, since two other cameras died due to very cold weather).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJlIXvbbtNA&feature=plcp

Andrej
 
Thanks guys. I was very surprised on the difference between altitude reading on Stratologger and ARTS2. GPS altitude and Stratologger altitude are preety close
(196 feet difference), but ARTS2 seems to be way off (1298 feet higher then Stratologger). It seems that Stratologger should be much more accurate with it's better baro sensor and 24 bit ADC compared to 10 bit ADC on ARTS2. Is this known issue with ARTS2 or was my unit not calibrated very well?
 
Welcome to the forum. Great first post and awesome flight.
 
Awesome project...loved the sound of that rocket.
Mach 1.9.
Wow.

You are brave to launch this project with all those trees.
 
Impressive job Andrej, especially the machining. Congratulations.
 
You are brave to launch this project with all those trees.
This is not like launch sites you guys in the States are used to. It's just a small clearing (about 300 x 450 feet). Around it is dense forest that stretches out for miles and is full of deep gorges and steep ridges. Brown bears, deers, wolves, foxes and occasional lynx are common there. Finding the rocket is a real challenge and I relly heavily on GPS. It's possible to find it with radio tracker alone but sometimes that takes entire day or even more.
 
This is not like launch sites you guys in the States are used to. It's just a small clearing (about 300 x 450 feet). Around it is dense forest that stretches out for miles and is full of deep gorges and steep ridges. Brown bears, deers, wolves, foxes and occasional lynx are common there. Finding the rocket is a real challenge and I relly heavily on GPS. It's possible to find it with radio tracker alone but sometimes that takes entire day or even more.

Yeah, terrain looks pretty rugged around there:

Capture.JPG
 
Thanks guys. I was very surprised on the difference between altitude reading on Stratologger and ARTS2. GPS altitude and Stratologger altitude are preety close
(196 feet difference), but ARTS2 seems to be way off (1298 feet higher then Stratologger). It seems that Stratologger should be much more accurate with it's better baro sensor and 24 bit ADC compared to 10 bit ADC on ARTS2. Is this known issue with ARTS2 or was my unit not calibrated very well?

The 1300 feet difference at this altitude equals roughly to a difference of 20mBar air pressure. A 10bit ADC on an absolute pressure sensor with about 1050mBar range has an resolution of about 1mBar (~65ft resolution @ 23kft). The ADC alone (unless it is a horrible one with 20 LSB nonlinearity) wouldn't explain the difference. The classic Freescale sensors like the MPX4100A have an accuracy of 1,8% over the temperature range from 0°C-85°C. This alone would be nearly enough to explain the difference. In addition to that, there are many other sources for error. One notable difference, between the newer sensors from Meas Spec (probably an MS5607 on the Stratologger) is the calibration and compensation. The newer sensor offers a temperature readout and some calibration parameters (determined in the factory for each sensor) that allows the computation of a compensated pressure value that will be much more precise. The hardware temperature compensation in something like the MPX4100A works in a much simpler way and therefore is less accurate.

Finally, even the GPS system and the Stratologger have only a limited accuracy. The Stratologger uses an atmospheric model that does not exactly reflect the atmospheric conditions on your launch site. GPS on the other hand is less accurate in the vertical direction compared to the horizontal direction, because most of the visible GPS satellites are rather close to the horizon. All of the affordable (and unregulated) GPS systems are optimized for a different dynamic environment (cars, pedestrians). This will also limit the accuracy when used in rockets. Seeing that GPS and the Stratologger agree within less than 1% is quite good in my opinion, but you might have been lucky on this flight.

Reinhard
 
Thanks Reinhard for the explanation. Makes much more sense now. It was cold that day (around 0°C) and the rocket was sitting in the open for about an hour. It's possible that accuracy of the baro sensor was affected enough to cause such a difference.
 
Andre,

Very impressive build and flight! How long did it take to build the rocket?

Pat
 
How long did it take to build the rocket?

I would say it took about 200- 300 hours of work, but since I have two little kids and I can do rocketry related work only at night it took me about a year.
 
Wow. I just now checked into this thread, and I gotta say I'm impressed - with the build quality of this rocket, the ground and launch support, the attention to detail, the motor and flight performance, and the sheer audacity of this project.

Most impressive is the launch site and conditions. I fully realize that there are no wide open spaces in Europe in which to launch, but I'm still amazed that someone would even think to launch in the middle of a forest on a cold and overcast day. But for you it seemed like, "well this is what we've got, let's do it". I love it.

Great job - VERY cool in my book.

Don't be a stranger now that you've joined us here on TRF. I for one would love for you to "join the gang" as it were. Seems like you would have a lot to offer.

cheers, s6
 
Thanks for the kind words stealth6. I have now started with a new project. The goal is to fly over 10.000 meters (about 33.000 feet) on sugar propellant. This new rocket will probably be a bit smaller/ lighter, but much better optimized for achieving high altitudes. I plan to build it over winter and launch sometime in the spring.
 
I am very interested in how you did the head in igniter and what it was made of. Could we have some details. I make several types myself and wondered what was available to you over there.

Thanks
 
I am very interested in how you did the head in igniter and what it was made of. Could we have some details. I make several types myself and wondered what was available to you over there.

Tonight I took the motor apart, cleaned it and took some photos of the pyrogen igniter setup. This igniter is very simple. An E-match is potted in a threaded bolt with epoxy. This is screwed into a motor forward bulkhead. Small O-ring and some teflon tape on the threads make sure the seal is gas tight. Small propellant grain (propellant is doped with catalyst for faster burn rate) is inserted in a steel igniter casing with four sonic nozzles. Propellant grain is uninhibited and burns for about 0,3 seconds. Igniter casing is then screwed to the forward bulkhead. The entire assembly has only four parts- Ematch, fwd. bulkhead, igniter casing, igniter propellant grain.

IMG_3782.jpg

IMG_3783.jpg

IMG_3785.jpg

Andrej
 
Last edited:
Tonight I took the motor apart, cleaned it and took some photos of the pyrogen igniter setup. This igniter is very simple. An E-match is potted in a threaded bolt with epoxy. This is screwed into a motor forward bulkhead. Small O-ring and some teflon tape on the threads make sure the seal is gas tight. Small propellant grain (propellant is doped with catalyst for faster burn rate) is inserted in a steel igniter casing with four sonic nozzles. Propellant grain is uninhibited and burns for about 0,3 seconds. Igniter casing is then screwed to the forward bulkhead. The entire assembly has only four parts- Ematch, fwd. bulkhead, igniter casing, igniter propellant grain.

Andrej

Absolutely brilliant!
 
I launched this rocket for the second time last week. Everything worked as planed. Propellant weight was about 0,5% higher than with the first flight. Launch site elevation was much lower (60 meters vs. 1070 meters for the first flight) which resulted in an apogee about 650 meters lower and slightly lower max. velocity.
Here are some photos and a video of the launch:

IMG_4665_zps42b4910f.jpg

IMG_4685_zpsbef1b8bc.jpg

DSCN6287_zps45ba9460.jpg

[video=youtube;d_AweYPlwkk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_AweYPlwkk[/video]
 
Wow! Such an impressive bird. I didn't see this thread before and I was reading through the first flight… That was awesome as well! The sound on the first one was really incredible. You can tell that you're in deep woods and high terrain. Congratulations on another beautiful flight.
 
Two very nice flights and the first professional type igniter I've seen on the forum.

Bob
 
I forgot to mention that due to rather strong wind, rocket landed 4 kilometers from the launch pad on the top of a very tall tree.
It was sucessfully recovered about two hours later using this useful piece of equipment:

570_Chainsaw_zps666a975e.jpg
 
I launched this rocket for the second time last week. Everything worked as planed. Propellant weight was about 0,5% higher than with the first flight. Launch site elevation was much lower (60 meters vs. 1070 meters for the first flight) which resulted in an apogee about 650 meters lower and slightly lower max. velocity.

It seems, to me, that Eastern Europe countries have less restriction on motor impulse than Western Europe ?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top