Would this motor work for what I'm doing?

Onebadhawk
Wildman Rocketry
rocket sok
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
tomsteve said:
its good to see you interested, rain. theres a couple things im thinkin-
what size motor to get into space.....welp it isn't really what size. its how much thrust necessary.
so, getting INTO space- breaking the earths gravitational pull- escape velocity- requires a speed of about 25,000 miles per hour.
just something to think about.
Click to expand...

Interesting


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
rocket779 said:
I may be mistaken but don't usually people custom build their own motors for hobby use at some point anyhow? Or have someone they know do it for them?
So this guy must have been with a government agency, not a hobby rocketeer or group of rocketeers?

I signed up on this site largely because that video fascinated me. This seemed like a decent place to question it and the reality of getting to space on a "hobby" motor
Click to expand...


Some people make their own motors. I'm just getting into the basics of it myself. To fly them at a club type launch, so you can get FAA waivers and such, you need to be TRA Level 2 and convince them you know what you're doing. These are known as "Research" or "EX" motors.

Other people have no interest in making their own motors and buy them from the various vendors.

If you want to really make a "space shot" rocket, you likely need to make your own. You might be able to stage a couple O-class motors and get pretty close, I haven't simmed a rocket like that. Even if you ignore orbital velocity, and just go for up-down like most model/HPR rockets, you still need about 90% of the rocket mass to be propellant, and it's not a small rocket. The Qu8k is pretty efficient, you aren't going to see a much smaller rocket with similar performance. Pushing something out of the gravity well sucks, just how it is. Unless you can find a higher isp propellant, that's about the minimum size.

If you search about, you will find various attempts at ideas to get around the worst of it. Things like launching from a balloon in the stratosphere, off the back of a jet liner, giant guns, railguns, etc.. Those are interesting because you can lower the mass of your rocket by getting it a head start. Not just in altitude, but velocity as well. Well, a balloon doesn't help much with velocity, but the others do contribute at least some. Those methods introduce a lot of complexity and add failure points though.

The biggest thing to understand about scale and rockets, is that the curve for higher altitude/payload is not linear (440 G80s), it's exponential. Can hobbiest rockets get to space? Yes, but it's not easy and it's not cheap. There are very good reasons why only a few have pulled it off. Does that mean you shouldn't try to imagine alternatives? No, go for it. Ideas are great. But also be open to learning why some of those ideas don't work. Being wrong is the first part of learning, the next part is admitting it and figuring out why.
 
ttabbal said:
Some people make their own motors. I'm just getting into the basics of it myself. To fly them at a club type launch, so you can get FAA waivers and such, you need to be TRA Level 2 and convince them you know what you're doing. These are known as "Research" or "EX" motors.

Other people have no interest in making their own motors and buy them from the various vendors.

If you want to really make a "space shot" rocket, you likely need to make your own. You might be able to stage a couple O-class motors and get pretty close, I haven't simmed a rocket like that. Even if you ignore orbital velocity, and just go for up-down like most model/HPR rockets, you still need about 90% of the rocket mass to be propellant, and it's not a small rocket. The Qu8k is pretty efficient, you aren't going to see a much smaller rocket with similar performance. Pushing something out of the gravity well sucks, just how it is. Unless you can find a higher isp propellant, that's about the minimum size.

If you search about, you will find various attempts at ideas to get around the worst of it. Things like launching from a balloon in the stratosphere, off the back of a jet liner, giant guns, railguns, etc.. Those are interesting because you can lower the mass of your rocket by getting it a head start. Not just in altitude, but velocity as well. Well, a balloon doesn't help much with velocity, but the others do contribute at least some. Those methods introduce a lot of complexity and add failure points though.

The biggest thing to understand about scale and rockets, is that the curve for higher altitude/payload is not linear (440 G80s), it's exponential. Can hobbiest rockets get to space? Yes, but it's not easy and it's not cheap. There are very good reasons why only a few have pulled it off. Does that mean you shouldn't try to imagine alternatives? No, go for it. Ideas are great. But also be open to learning why some of those ideas don't work. Being wrong is the first part of learning, the next part is admitting it and figuring out why.
Click to expand...

Would pushing exhaust out of a nozzle create more thrust. Or would it resist?


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
You need nozzles, sure. If you mean enclosing multiple hobby motors and running their exhaust through another nozzle, no, that won't help. The added pressure and heat would probably destroy the hobby motors. Even if it did, you are adding a lot of mass that is not propellant. That's the wrong direction.
 
The technology is clear. Pipe of the engine fiberglass and epoxy. Fuel - ammonium perchlorate and aluminum associated with epoxy. Metal nozzle with graphite insertions. But you will need fire tests and this makes the project more expensive.
With hobby engines- forgot:)
 
ttabbal said:
You need nozzles, sure. If you mean enclosing multiple hobby motors and running their exhaust through another nozzle, no, that won't help. The added pressure and heat would probably destroy the hobby motors. Even if it did, you are adding a lot of mass that is not propellant. That's the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

Yeah I wasn't talking about hobby motors. I saw a nozzle on a rocket on Wikipedia and wondered if it did what I thought it did.


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
Machines - one for tight winding tube from fiberglass. Not too expensive. A lathe for making the nozzle. A press for pressing grains around 70-80 kg each :) Short about 50k dollars and have small satellite :)
 
Hobby engines can be used for vertical stabilization of the rocket and its inclination to enter the correct trajectory for orbital flight :)
 
[video=youtube;JakicLZgN-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JakicLZgN-o[/video]
This can put 0.3-1 kg into orbit :)
 
SaturnV said:
[video=youtube;JakicLZgN-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JakicLZgN-o[/video]
This can put 0.3-1 kg into orbit :)
Click to expand...

How high would you need to get before it looked as if you were almost in space?


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
Adopted is a uniform limit of 100 km. It can be achieved with much smaller rocket. But I understand the goal is to drive payload in orbit. It is much more difficult because you must fostigne speed of eight kilometers per second.As in the 60's and 70 and 80 and 90 it was unthinkable a private company to have satellites and now perhaps is unthinkable amateur rocket to deliver in orbit a small satellite. But it will surely happen one day and that day is not far away. As explained above, the rocket will be about 600 kg-2 tons and with existing and now particularly not complex technologies.
Now the price of one kilogram into orbit is 20,000 dollars. For amateur rocket of a small satellite about 0.5-1kg should be no more than 50 thousand dollars.An organization with 1000 members can gather the money for a week :)If a company such as Aerotech help with tube engine nozzle and grains then things could happen very quickly :)I mean help is not with money but with their machines. If they take it as an advertisement and if you find someone else to sponsor even better :)
 
Last edited:
I think that Jim Yarvis and 5-6 as him will not be a problem to build such a rocket to stabilize and steer in the correct orbit:)
 
I just realized, 100,000 feet looks as if you were in space. Why is that? And why do they consider "space" at 300,000 feet?


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
rAiN_Twist said:
I just realized, 100,000 feet looks as if you were in space. Why is that? And why do they consider "space" at 300,000 feet?
Click to expand...

Because that's where the FAI recognized Kármán's calculations on the limits of aeronautical flight (mesopause/turbopause).
 
Last edited:
rAiN_Twist said:
I just realized, 100,000 feet
Click to expand...

Even more than 100k feet can be lifted balloon :) You do not think that a balloon can go to space? All these limits are contingent. For me, real space begins even beyond Earth's orbit, Тhese satellites constantly keep them in orbit so as not to fall to the ground :)Аmateur rocket drives one kilogram satellite to Earth orbit and it does not fall a few days or months is something qualitatively different than any amateur rocket that quickly falls to the ground faster :) Difference between orbital and suborbital flight is quite large :)
 
Is it possible to shoot a rocket 100k feet, or close with G80's?


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
blackbrandt said:
Am I the only one who is suspecting a troll?
Click to expand...

Yep, how can I be trolling? I literally did the math, and couldn't figure out how you can shoot a rocket 100k feet with G80's. I guess I did it wrong. I'm sorry I don't know as much as you do.


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
rAiN_Twist said:
Interesting


rAiN Twist - YouTube
Click to expand...


heres one of the threads here on a build. this is hitting 150k'
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...op-150k-feet-Aluminum-Fin-Can-Extreme-Wildman

if you look up the CSXT, youll notice the motor alone is a wee bit bigger that any estes rocket kit.
another thing to consider- you want to get into space, which that terminal velocity has to be reached. I do believe,however, its possible to launch into space on a verticle tracectory, but the object will fall right back to earth. to keep an object in space-in orbit- it has to maintain speed, which satellites and such maintain a speed to where it really isn't keeping them in space, its more keeping them falling at a speed which the satellite keeps them in orbit.
this is a rather complicated article

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

but shows theres quite a bit to it.
 
blackbrandt said:
Am I the only one who is suspecting a troll?
Click to expand...

Either that or he's way in over his head and doesn't know it. His youtube channel is filled with video game videos and it looks like he aspires to be a professional gamer. Not sure why it's in his signature.

Rain (and anyone else that has questions like this), it's clear by the questions you're asking you have a very limited rocketry knowledge and need to start with the basics. Don't take that in a bad way, we all start somewhere. If you really want to pursue this you need to join TRA or NAR and find a club to fly with that can teach you the basics. Start pursuing the certification programs for High Power and then start thinking about a spaceshot. You will be much better equipped to ask the appropriate questions and do the project properly.

And if you know the answers to your questions and are just trolling us for fun, knock it off...
 
Last edited:
tomsteve said:
heres one of the threads here on a build. this is hitting 150k'
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...op-150k-feet-Aluminum-Fin-Can-Extreme-Wildman

if you look up the CSXT, youll notice the motor alone is a wee bit bigger that any estes rocket kit.
another thing to consider- you want to get into space, which that terminal velocity has to be reached. I do believe,however, its possible to launch into space on a verticle tracectory, but the object will fall right back to earth. to keep an object in space-in orbit- it has to maintain speed, which satellites and such maintain a speed to where it really isn't keeping them in space, its more keeping them falling at a speed which the satellite keeps them in orbit.
this is a rather complicated article

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

but shows theres quite a bit to it.
Click to expand...

Wow! Thanks that's very helpful. I'm not so interested into getting into orbit as I am strapping a GoPro to a rocket and shooting it close enough to space that I will fall back down and be able to retrieve the data.


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
NateLowrie said:
Either that or he's way in over his head and doesn't know it. His youtube channel is filled with video game videos and it looks like he aspires to be a professional gamer. Not sure why it's in his signature.

Rain (and anyone else that has questions like this), it's clear by the questions you're asking you have a very limited rocketry knowledge and need to start with the basics. Don't take that in a bad way, we all start somewhere. If you really want to pursue this you need to join TRA or NAR and find a club to fly with that can teach you the basics. Start pursuing the certification programs for High Power and then start thinking about a spaceshot. You will be much better equipped to ask the appropriate questions and do the project properly.

And if you know the answers to your questions and are just trolling us for fun, knock it off...
Click to expand...

No offense if your in a club or anything. But I hate clubs. I don't like having multiple people working on one thing. And I like getting the experience, and knowledge myself.


rAiN Twist - YouTube
 
rAiN_Twist said:
Wow! Thanks that's very helpful. I'm not so interested into getting into orbit as I am strapping a GoPro to a rocket and shooting it close enough to space that I will fall back down and be able to retrieve the data.


rAiN Twist - YouTube
Click to expand...

None of these did orbit, orbit requires guidance and an angled flight path:i.e. watch a shuttle launch and see the roll pattern.
 

Similar threads

Z
GOX liquid motor
Replies
8
Views
2K
rocket_troy
R
Kframe
655 miles on a J270! (A story about getting a lost rocket back)
Replies
8
Views
1K
jqavins
jqavins
frogglicker
Scratch Build - Upscaled 3-in "Menace-3D"
Replies
2
Views
303
frogglicker
frogglicker
S
Adam Laakmann's Rocket Facts LinkedIn posts #1 - #10
Replies
8
Views
933
John Kemker
John Kemker
L
Downscaled Nuclear Crowbar build
Replies
9
Views
795
billpr
B

Latest posts

Back
Top