Restrictions on 3D printed rockets for cert flights?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

Dave S.

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 30, 2022
Messages
199
Reaction score
111
Location
Alexandria, VA
are there any restrictions on the use of 3D printed rockets for level 1 cert flights?

The rocket for a cert attempt is supposed to be built by you - but 3D printed kits are pretty much ARF.
 
I wouldn't advise someone to proceed with balsa or cardboard fins, unless they had compelling evidence. So too for many 3D printed fins or cans.

And as you point out, pressing "print" is not building.
 
Level 1 is a relatively low bar, as it should be. I don't see any issues with using a 3D printed rocket. When I am evaluating/mentoring someone for an L1 cert flight, I am looking for the following basic criteria:

  1. Is the rocket safe/stable? (standard RSO checks)
  2. Can the flyer answer basic HPR questions about their rocket and flight?
    1. Point out the CP/CG
    2. What motor did you choose and why?
    3. What is the thrust-to-weight ratio?
    4. Explain your recovery and motor retention
If things look wonky, there may be more questions, but if the flyer can answer the above and the rocket passes muster, 3D print away.

I do think there should be a higher bar for L2 and L3, but the question was specific to L1.
 
are there any restrictions on the use of 3D printed rockets for level 1 cert flights?

The rocket for a cert attempt is supposed to be built by you - but 3D printed kits are pretty much ARF.
3d printed kits for HPR? Haven't seen those...
 
3d printed kits for HPR? Haven't seen those...

The OP could be designing his own, which would be very cool. His main question was whether it was allowed, not whether someone makes a 3D kit. I hope he is designing/printing his own, would love to see a project like that! (I do not currently own a 3D printer, so I love seeing projects beyond my capabilities).

And, to be fair, Boyce has some kits that look like they could accomodate an H motor. I may pick up this HoJo and see if it can fly on a 29mm H - blow it out or blow it up!

https://boyceaerospacehobbies.com/products/1-9th-scale-honest-john-builders-kit
 
The OP could be designing his own, which would be very cool. His main question was whether it was allowed, not whether someone makes a 3D kit. I hope he is designing/printing his own, would love to see a project like that! (I do not currently own a 3D printer, so I love seeing projects beyond my capabilities).

And, to be fair, Boyce has some kits that look like they could accomodate an H motor. I may pick up this HoJo and see if it can fly on a 29mm H - blow it out or blow it up!

https://boyceaerospacehobbies.com/products/1-9th-scale-honest-john-builders-kit

I have that kit, it's sitting half-built on my shelf. I don't think it will have any problems with an H and I plan to balance it for an I200.
 
Gatekeeping when it comes to 3d printing is just so silly. Printers are a tool, the really old guys probably said the same things about laser cutting before as well. NASA engineers aren't doing much with a slide rule these days, do folks mock them for using computer sims? Does anyone mock the tons of folks using sims for their builds these days? Provided it's allowable by the rules, it's awesome. I run into this same manner of thinking in other hobbies. I always challenge those to sit down with a CAD program, learn to use it, design something, build it, and test it before they say; 'that's not building.' It may not be your building, but that doesn't make it wrong. I'm here to have fun and build weird stuff with any tools available to me. Have fun all!
 
I am often the RSO at our club launch and while I generally don't have a problem with some 3D printed components, however there are exceptions. I do not like home printed fin cans or body tubes for HPR. I have seen failures with home printed components due to incomplete bonding of the plastic between layers. This may be due to incorrect printer settings, the temperature and humidity during printing, faults with the plastic (like moisture absorption), or the printer itself. As RSO we can only visually assess a rocket and a 3D printed rocket may look great, but have faults that cannot be assessed visually.

With cardboard, fiberglass or plywood, as RSO you can assess the build quality and get a pretty good idea of how the rocket will perform because the strength of the materials are consistent and well known and the build quality and rocket condition are pretty easy to assess. As RSO I don't like 3D printed rockets because while they may be fine, they also may have a fault that cannot be seen which makes them dangerous under load.

Commercially printed products that have undergone strict quality control and testing are different.
 
I am often the RSO at our club launch and while I generally don't have a problem with some 3D printed components, however there are exceptions. I do not like home printed fin cans or body tubes for HPR. I have seen failures with home printed components due to incomplete bonding of the plastic between layers. This may be due to incorrect printer settings, the temperature and humidity during printing, faults with the plastic (like moisture absorption), or the printer itself. As RSO we can only visually assess a rocket and a 3D printed rocket may look great, but have faults that cannot be assessed visually.

With cardboard, fiberglass or plywood, as RSO you can assess the build quality and get a pretty good idea of how the rocket will perform because the strength of the materials are consistent and well known and the build quality and rocket condition are pretty easy to assess. As RSO I don't like 3D printed rockets because while they may be fine, they also may have a fault that cannot be seen which makes them dangerous under load.

Commercially printed products that have undergone strict quality control and testing are different.
As an RSO or when I’m inspecting a certification rocket I usually start out trying to squeeze the fins together. If there’s a hidden fault that might cause a failure in flight it’s better to have the fins break off in my hands before the attempt. I haven’t had an occasion to do this with a 3D printed fin can yet, but I have faith in the test.
I have broken off some fins doing this.
 
As an RSO or when I’m inspecting a certification rocket I usually start out trying to squeeze the fins together. If there’s a hidden fault that might cause a failure in flight it’s better to have the fins break off in my hands before the attempt. I haven’t had an occasion to do this with a 3D printed fin can yet, but I have faith in the test.
I have broken off some fins doing this.
Most 3D printed rocket failures I have seen are usually in the airframe, ejection charge goes off blowing them into several pieces, 3d printed attachment points failing, nosecones breaking mid-flight, every failure has been parallel to the Z-axis layer. I so far only two fliers at our field have proven to me that they can fully 3d print a rocket and it be recovered fully intact (both fly them on J motors). Typically failures on hybrid 3D print rockets a much rarer, usually they stem from an issue with either the nose cone breaking along the layers or the shock cord attachment point at the nosecone failing.

3D printing has many uses in rocketry BUT people need to know its strengths and weaknesses, and how to counteract those weaknesses. Most of my 3D printed nosecones have some form of interal structure to carry the load of the attachment point, usually that structure is a airframe tube inside the nose cone that is epoxied in or foamed in or both, and the attachment point is placed inside that tube, rendering the 3D printed part basically a contoured shell.
 
Most 3D printed rocket failures I have seen are usually in the airframe, ejection charge goes off blowing them into several pieces, 3d printed attachment points failing, nosecones breaking mid-flight, every failure has been parallel to the Z-axis layer. I so far only two fliers at our field have proven to me that they can fully 3d print a rocket and it be recovered fully intact (both fly them on J motors). Typically failures on hybrid 3D print rockets a much rarer, usually they stem from an issue with either the nose cone breaking along the layers or the shock cord attachment point at the nosecone failing.

3D printing has many uses in rocketry BUT people need to know its strengths and weaknesses, and how to counteract those weaknesses. Most of my 3D printed nosecones have some form of interal structure to carry the load of the attachment point, usually that structure is a airframe tube inside the nose cone that is epoxied in or foamed in or both, and the attachment point is placed inside that tube, rendering the 3D printed part basically a contoured shell.
The failures I have seen are pretty much the same.

There is one guy in our club I would trust with any 3D printing because he really knows what he is doing. I have never seen any of his components fail and that includes a 3D printed transition section and nosecone for a half scale Nike Apache which he launched on O3400 staging to an M2020!
 
I am often the RSO at our club launch and while I generally don't have a problem with some 3D printed components, however there are exceptions. I do not like home printed fin cans or body tubes for HPR. I have seen failures with home printed components due to incomplete bonding of the plastic between layers. This may be due to incorrect printer settings, the temperature and humidity during printing, faults with the plastic (like moisture absorption), or the printer itself. As RSO we can only visually assess a rocket and a 3D printed rocket may look great, but have faults that cannot be assessed visually.

With cardboard, fiberglass or plywood, as RSO you can assess the build quality and get a pretty good idea of how the rocket will perform because the strength of the materials are consistent and well known and the build quality and rocket condition are pretty easy to assess. As RSO I don't like 3D printed rockets because while they may be fine, they also may have a fault that cannot be seen which makes them dangerous under load.

Commercially printed products that have undergone strict quality control and testing are different.
How is that any different than "traditional" materials and construction methods???

Flip the scenario. Let's say all you have ever done is build rockets by 3D printing them and now you are the club RSO. How good are you going to be at finding flaws in rockets made from cardboard and FG? Certainly not as good as someone that has a lot of experience building rockets with those materials.

I think the real issue is having a RSO inspect a rocket constructed with materials and techniques that they have no firsthand experience with. I would argue that a RSO with 3D printing experience would be able to detect poor build quality in a 3D printed rocket. The same is true for traditional construction methods. Isn't that one of the characteristics people look for in a RSO - an experienced builder and flyer? It seems to me that as technology has evolved the types of experience required is growing. IMO, if the RSO doesn't have 3D printing knowledge and experience they should have someone they trust with that experience to help them. I'm not a RSO so perhaps I'm way off base but I doubt it.
 
How is that any different than "traditional" materials and construction methods???

Flip the scenario. Let's say all you have ever done is build rockets by 3D printing them and now you are the club RSO. How good are you going to be at finding flaws in rockets made from cardboard and FG? Certainly not as good as someone that has a lot of experience building rockets with those materials.

I think the real issue is having a RSO inspect a rocket constructed with materials and techniques that they have no firsthand experience with. I would argue that a RSO with 3D printing experience would be able to detect poor build quality in a 3D printed rocket. The same is true for traditional construction methods. Isn't that one of the characteristics people look for in a RSO - an experienced builder and flyer? It seems to me that as technology has evolved the types of experience required is growing. IMO, if the RSO doesn't have 3D printing knowledge and experience they should have someone they trust with that experience to help them. I'm not a RSO so perhaps I'm way off base but I doubt it.
This was actually one of the most frequently cited reasons not to allow 3D printed fin cans, because expertise is still so lacking (and will be for some time) that we don’t have enough people who can evaluate whether a 3D printed rocket should be allowed to fly.
Also, if we certify someone who only knows 3D printing, that person doesn’t have the expertise to serve as an RSO for the vast majority of traditionally constructed rockets.
Maybe we should require everyone to certify twice - once using traditional construction and once using 3D printing - so we’re sure to have experienced RSOs. 😉
 
How is that any different than "traditional" materials and construction methods???

Flip the scenario. Let's say all you have ever done is build rockets by 3D printing them and now you are the club RSO. How good are you going to be at finding flaws in rockets made from cardboard and FG? Certainly not as good as someone that has a lot of experience building rockets with those materials.

I think the real issue is having a RSO inspect a rocket constructed with materials and techniques that they have no firsthand experience with. I would argue that a RSO with 3D printing experience would be able to detect poor build quality in a 3D printed rocket. The same is true for traditional construction methods. Isn't that one of the characteristics people look for in a RSO - an experienced builder and flyer? It seems to me that as technology has evolved the types of experience required is growing. IMO, if the RSO doesn't have 3D printing knowledge and experience they should have someone they trust with that experience to help them. I'm not a RSO so perhaps I'm way off base but I doubt it.
Not so, the failures I have seen with 3D printed rockets were the ones that got by ME (sometimes 100's f launches in a weekend). I RSO the vast majority of all flights at all TriCities Rocketeers launches, I 3D print and fully understand the failure modes, a little epoxy and paint can easily cover most any defect especially bad layer bonding. The most sucessful 3D printed rockets were the ones printed then post print processed. We have a couple of fliers from B.C. who really have 3D printing down predominantly use a fortified nylon filament of some type, that goes through a post print heat treated. Their fin cans when tapped remind me of fins made with autoclaved pre-preg carbon, they fly mainly J motors in them. Another flier (Jose) does completely 3d printed rockets and I have yet to see one of his have a failure and he has flown up to J motors iirc (dont recall his filament choices).
3D printed rockets can be done but the typical tests for traditional construction methods dont work as well with printed rockets.
 
Not so, the failures I have seen with 3D printed rockets were the ones that got by ME (sometimes 100's f launches in a weekend). I RSO the vast majority of all flights at all TriCities Rocketeers launches, I 3D print and fully understand the failure modes, a little epoxy and paint can easily cover most any defect especially bad layer bonding. The most sucessful 3D printed rockets were the ones printed then post print processed. We have a couple of fliers from B.C. who really have 3D printing down predominantly use a fortified nylon filament of some type, that goes through a post print heat treated. Their fin cans when tapped remind me of fins made with autoclaved pre-preg carbon, they fly mainly J motors in them. Another flier (Jose) does completely 3d printed rockets and I have yet to see one of his have a failure and he has flown up to J motors iirc (dont recall his filament choices).
3D printed rockets can be done but the typical tests for traditional construction methods dont work as well with printed rockets.
So you've never had a traditionally constructed rocket you've inspected fail during flight?

Epoxy and paint can cover defects in any type of construction, not just 3D printing. It's unreasonable to think that a visual inspection can ensure no failures will occur, regardless of the materials or method of construction. All I am saying is that someone with experience will find more defects than someone without any.
 
Last edited:
So you've never had a traditionally constructed rocket you've inspected fail during flight?

Epoxy and paint can cover defects in any type of construction, not just 3D printing. It's unreasonable to think that a visual inspection can ensure no failures will occur, regardless of the materials or method of construction. All I am saying is that someone with experience will find more defects than someone without any.
Absolutely I have had traditional construction fails get through the checks, usually they were shreds, separations, or other catostrophic events failures not on nominal flight profile events like ejection charges firing at apogee
 
I think one of the key design requirements for 3D printed rockets are making sure that if there is a failure (typically z-axis weakness) then the entire rocket stays together. That's how I design when using any 3D printed transitions, nosecones etc. You can't put a harness just into a 3D printed part and expect it to be there at the end, especially if using FDM printers. My rockets have a harness or other mechanical fixings contiguous from the motor mount to the NC tip.

As mentioned upthread, post-processing of some sort greatly improves the strength of the prints.
 
As an RSO or when I’m inspecting a certification rocket I usually start out trying to squeeze the fins together. If there’s a hidden fault that might cause a failure in flight it’s better to have the fins break off in my hands before the attempt. I haven’t had an occasion to do this with a 3D printed fin can yet, but I have faith in the test.
I have broken off some fins doing this.
RSO duties are primarily a safety inspection of the rocket and not an opportunity to preform a functional stress test of the rocket construction and components. If I had concerns on exceptable stress on parts and construction, attempting something that might break a part or assembly on someones rocket would not be a technique I would use.:questions:
 
RSO duties are primarily a safety inspection of the rocket and not an opportunity to preform a functional stress test of the rocket construction and components. If I had concerns on exceptable stress on parts and construction, attempting something that might break a part or assembly on someones rocket would not be a technique I would use.:questions:
I surely don't think this is designed or intended to be a destructive test. At the same time, if routine handling and or a small tug on the fins causes flight-preventing damage, that's a clear opportunity to have a safety chat.
 
RSO duties are primarily a safety inspection of the rocket and not an opportunity to preform a functional stress test of the rocket construction and components. If I had concerns on exceptable stress on parts and construction, attempting something that might break a part or assembly on someones rocket would not be a technique I would use.:questions:

I surely don't think this is designed or intended to be a destructive test. At the same time, if routine handling and or a small tug on the fins causes flight-preventing damage, that's a clear opportunity to have a safety chat.


Fred,
I disagree. If squeezing the fins towards each other causes the glue joints to pop it’s much better to have than happen in my hands instead of while flying. I think I do a pretty good job of this without actually trying to break the fins off. On the few occasions when fins have actually failed in my hands I have sat beside the people and showed them how to prep their glue joints and I’ve loaned them 15 minute epoxy so they could fix their rockets.

DHBarr,
I agree. I’m not trying to do a destructive test, although it might seem that way to the person whose rocket I’m testing. My method will not uncover every possible failure, but it has revealed and avoided a few imminent failures.

Steve
 
Payload, I can only comment on my rockets. I just finished a Nike Hercules, all 3D printed. I still had to install the mmt and retainer. I had to design and make the interstage coupler, then fit it and install it. I also had to design shock cord mounts on both ends, all not 3D printed. Then I had to add NC weight and secure. So then it becomes just like another kit. I understand what you are getting at, but sometimes there is more than just push the button. i will say I have a little 1/2A Saturn V that I printed, and all you gotta do is shove a motor up its bunn.
 
Fred,
I disagree. If squeezing the fins towards each other causes the glue joints to pop it’s much better to have than happen in my hands instead of while flying. I think I do a pretty good job of this without actually trying to break the fins off. On the few occasions when fins have actually failed in my hands I have sat beside the people and showed them how to prep their glue joints and I’ve loaned them 15 minute epoxy so they could fix their rockets.

DHBarr,
I agree. I’m not trying to do a destructive test, although it might seem that way to the person whose rocket I’m testing. My method will not uncover every possible failure, but it has revealed and avoided a few imminent failures.

Steve
I try to put myself in the flyer's shoes; "would I like the RSO doing as you said to my rocket/property"? There is an obvious answer, especially if it results in damage. My reaction, as a flyer, more than likely, would not be a very pleasing one. It is not your place or mine to do such stress testing, as you called it. Most of us that do RSO can readily tell, via visual observation/inspection, if airworthiness construction is an issue, without phisical manipulation of parts.. At least that has been my experience. However, whatever works for you...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top