EVENT BALLS 28

Perhaps we have gone a bit OT with this. The discussion was very useful I think, but I think the intent of starting this thread was more of a who's going, projects, what is this event, photos/videos, who had a good time, etc.
But, thank you for posting your experience Plugger. No wonder you have so many "likes." I've seen some damage on my rockets in the area you are describing and I thought is was landing damage. Now, I'm re-thinking that. Cylinders have a shape that can be very strong, but what happens when the airframe goes even slightly off-axis (roll and cone) and the angle of attack changes. Particularly during heating. Anyway, good stuff!
For tilt protection during staging, I'm planning on programming my rockets during testing (as a single stage rocket) just like it's a sustainer with the air start. But, timed so the ignition would be sub-optimal. The igniter will be a dummy load. Then, I will see, did it fire or not?

I'm looking forward to the class 3 experience topic coming up again. Maybe continuing when the summary is posted. Personally, I always like to define some kind of objective to judge the progress on any kind of rocketry endeavor. So, how about, to increase the annual percentage of Class 3 successes?

Charles_McG said:

Putting that kind of info in a place like TRF invites a lot of speculation and second guessing. And third guessing. From ‘It was Broken As Designed’ to ‘you built it wrong’ to ‘you did your analysis wrong’. With guesses and hearsay to boot. Useful info sometimes survives, but few people like watching sausage being made.

Having a resource would be good. Having it somewhat central and known would be good.

How about something like motorcato.org, but for the whole rocket. Especially V2, where reports are visible. Simple database. No discussion in-situ. Perhaps editable by the original poster or the admin. Voluntary but recommended.

Maybe even approach John Coker about it.

Click to expand...

Good comments Charles, and I agree. It would need to be a read only website, no forum, no comments. If people want to speculate they can do it here as they already do.

I'll reach out to John and see if he has any comments.

FredA said:

Remember -- as a general statement, the Balls community does not NEED TRF for anything.
We have plenty of "community" to provide commentary on a flight or rocket, pre or post flight.

Posting here is for fun.
Posting here and being second-guessed by people who really don't have the experience and knowledge is NOT usually fun.
Frankly, I think this place is lucky they get the postings they do.......

If you want to learn about Balls-level rockets, goto Balls.

Click to expand...

I've been to Balls Fred. Twice in fact. But I live on the other side of the planet and now have a family. I can't justify a trip to the desert annually from a financial perspective just to learn about Balls level rockets. And even being at Balls doesn't guarantee any sort of information sharing from participants. I've seen Jim J. and Curt vD both fly projects at Balls but I've never had the opportunity to get an up close and personal look at their projects before or after flight. And if I'm being honest I wouldn't expect to or ask, the people who travel to Balls aren't there to do show and tell for their project, they're there to fly. I wouldn't expect Jim to stop his prep on the flight line to pull his entire vehicle apart and show me all of the critical pieces that make the project work, especially to someone who he's only just met. After he's flown and recovered isn't ideal either as most people want to decompress, not front the equivalent of a media gallery. Even more so if something goes wrong.

Also, Balls no longer has a monopoly on high altitude hobbyist flights. I'm not sure if you're aware but here in Australia we have a club that has a standing waiver of 120k' at their high alt launch site. Instrument extensions to higher altitudes are a possibility. At Thunda 2019 there were 3 projects slated to fly that were simmed in the high 100s to low 200s from an apogee perspective. Unfortunately our FAA equivalent threw up some hurdles as it was a public/spectator friendly event and they didn't want those projects to fly at a public event. Conversations are being had to put together a high alt/staging event for those interested to give those projects an opportunity to get off the ground.

The site itself is also getting significant upgrades with support from both local industry and government.

https://bsaero.space/2019/10/black-sky-aerospace-miles-ahead-of-competition/

Finally, what I'm proposing has nothing to do with TRF other than we're having the conversation about it here and some useful information resides here.

Steve Shannon said:

Summaries prepared by Tripoli belong to Tripoli. If (hopefully when) Tripoli publishes such information it would strictly be on the Tripoli forum.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment Steve. I can understand yours/Tripoli's position. I don't agree with it as I do think this information has value to the wider rocketry community but I can at least see the situation from your perspective.

Chad said:

a document repository of PDFs with no comment support would work too. Seems like it should be managed as a joint effort between NAR and Tripoli but that's just my two, likely naive, cents. Personally, if it caught on, I think it would be a great research resource.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure NAR would have much value in the mix Chad as from my understanding most of these flights in the US are under the Tripoli banner as NAR doesn't really encourage Ex motors, HEI, etc. I could be wrong though, I'm not really across the NAR.

Basically I think there's two launch sites in the world that explicitly support these types of flights; Black Rock and the Funny Farm in Queensland, Australia. Given that it would make more sense to me to have the repository as a joint effort between Tripoli and the AMRS as they're the organisational bodies that control these events. If I were doing this I'd want someone over there to verify the validity of a claim because they were at Black Rock and saw the flight, know the team/person who did the flight, or know someone they trust that could corroborate the claim. I would expect the situation would be the same with y'all if some Aussie or Kiwi flew a two stage stack to the high 100s. How would a US based Tripoli member confirm the validity of a flight like that? I think it would be quite challenging. Given this a team effort between the two organisations would make the most sense, at least to me.

Plugger --- keep pluggin --- hope you get somebody to do what you want. Just realize you're pushing a rope uphill. But it's nice to dream.

Thanks Fred! It's still early days of course but hopefully someone over there agrees with me enough to put their hand up. And yes, I know I'm being a bit optimistic but I always prefer optimism if at all possible.

Got some photos of my Wildman Mach2!!! Thanks Jim!
Aerotech K456DM and K805G.

My 4 inch Balls project. FW NC & payload with dual deploy. Aluminum Booster with Max Q fin can


On her way to 56,000'


Good recovery 2.5 miles away


Raven data - Dual Thrust Research motor 18,600 Ns


Can't figure out how to upload a kml file so here's a shot from Google Earth


What a great weekend! Already planning for next year.

Really nice Scott ...Well done sir

I've started down a similar road for BALLS next year.

Currently building a 4" experimental class N1000 with a un-certified minimum diameter cone rear closure. I'm using a Carbon fiber body and utilizing a modified Bender Max Q fin can along with a MC 5:5-1 VK nosecone. Early sims are in the 40/45k range. Trying to decide whether to use a head-in (Tender Descender) deployment or traditional dual deploy upper split Elc-can/booster/payload.

John

So far for BALLS 2020 an F80 in cardboard LOC tube airframe with ply fins.
Hamster Dance rocket.

M

jmwoody said:

Really nice Scott ...Well done sir

I've started down a similar road for BALLS next year.

Currently building a 4" experimental class N1000 with a un-certified minimum diameter cone rear closure. I'm using a Carbon fiber body and utilizing a modified Bender Max Q fin can along with a MC 5:5-1 VK nosecone. Early sims are in the 40/45k range. Trying to decide whether to use a head-in (Tender Descender) deployment or traditional dual deploy upper split Elc-can/booster/payload.

John

Click to expand...

Thanks John. The flight really blew me away. It only simed to 40k using rocksim. Of course the sims rely heavily on the motor files and the long motors files I get from Burnsim never seem to do them justice. I wasn't expecting the high G's it saw over the first 4 seconds. This was traditional dual deploy which added length and weight but I'm more comfortable with that style of recovery.

Good luck with the project!

Scott