2-stage J total impulse controlled by Blue Ravens

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Today I worked on replacing booster components. I'm re-doing my ejectable av-bay so that the electronics will be more accessible and I can be more confident cramming the tracker next to the Blue Raven.

The original version has one has a section of coupler with the threaded rods semi-permanently attached inside a 2" long extension of the coupler. This required sliding the Blue Raven and tracker along the threaded rods, with no visibility of what goes on at the forward end. This time I'm re-building it so that the electronics can be assembled within the threaded rods and then closed out by putting the coupler around it and then bolting it to the rest of the ejectable av-bay. When I get farther I'll show some more pictures to make it more clear.

I also have decided on my motors for the NSL launch at the end of the month. I'm planning to start with a re-try of the J record attempt, this time with a new J 474 from Loki. It has the triangular burn profile I love to see in a booster, starting out with a whopping 1200 N of peak thrust right at the beginning that should boost the stage with about 50-60 Gs and a tower exit velocity of 125 mph. The sustainer will use a CTI I125 moon burner. I'm a little concerned about the offset mass causing torque during the burn, but when I flew this sustainer last week with a pretty squirrely initial trajectory, that didn't stop it from going 2000 feet higher than the Open Rocket sim said it would get to without a sustainer ignition. I'll show more details of the sim when I get it tuned up. I'll use my smaller sustainer rocket body that is designed for 5 grain motors.

If that flight goes well, then I'll go for the K impulse multi-stage record, starting with a Loki K1127 in the booster. It also has about 1200 N at ignition but keeps that up and then some for 0.7 seconds before tapering down. It will get the stack going to about Mach 1.2 and then separate. The sustainer will have a CTI J530, which will get the sustainer going about Mach 2.5. There is room in the impulse class for an AT J510, but it's not a motor I have at the moment. As it is, the combination should approach 50 kft or maybe a bit beyond. I'll know more after some more detailed sims later.
 
With the sims I ran, there seemed like a pretty good chance that if I use the J530 for the sustainer in the K impulse flight, that I could exceed the FAA waiver at NSL, so now I'm planning to use the CTI J160 6GXL mellow yellow that did not ignite a few weeks ago. Now the sim is 46k, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes somewhat higher.

I made some more progress on the booster today. The ejectable av-bay is done, and today I worked more on the anchor. The anchor connects the motor and the shock cord to the booster airframe, provides a home for the coiled shock cord of the ejectable av-bay, and protects the airframe from the ejection charge. I had already glued and glassed in a fiberglass bulkhead into a 2.25" long BlueTube coupler, and a 1/4-20 bolt attaches it to the threaded forward closure of the Loki 38mm motor. Today I assembled and positioned everything, and then drilled through the airframe and the coupler together. I pulled out the anchor and enlarged the through-hole with a 1/4" bit, and did a press fit of the 1/4" diameter aluminum coupler that is the cross-bar for the shock cord.

IMG-0960.jpg

I installed the anchor again and then counter-sunk the airframe and the anchor together until the screws for the anchor were approximately flush:

IMG-0961.jpg

I'm not too worried about the aerodynamic imperfection of the counter-sunk screw, or the slight shrink tape waves that haven't been sanded off of the tube yet, because the booster will only affect the sustainer aerodynamically for about 1 second at the beginning of the flight.

The sharpie is to distinguish which hole of the anchor aligns with which hole of the airframe. I drilled pretty close to down the middle, but it's not perfect.

Later, after emptying the av-bay of electronics I drilled the other hole in the photo above, at the approximate location of the Bluetooth chip antenna that is on the Blue Raven. Based on my last booster, a hole in the right place is just enough to allow the Bluetooth to communicate through the carbon fiber airframe when the phone is close by. This is also the pressure port for the baro sensor, located far enough from the baro sensor to avoid getting any direct sunlight on it.

Here's how the anchor looks when bolted to the top of the motor after the counter-sinking was done.

IMG-0959.jpg

Today I also trimmed the length of the booster so that the sustainer motor can be supported by the booster av-bay stack, and the longest possible 38mm motor (used for the Loki K1127) just barely sticks out the aft end. For the shorter Loki motor I'll use for the J flight, I have some aluminum 1/4-20 threaded rod and an aluminum coupler that I'll cut down tomorrow to form an extension bolt from the anchor's bulkhead down to the top of the Loki J474 motor.

Tomorrow I'll get to try out the new Blue Raven ground test feature on a real ground test, to size up how much BP I want to put into the booster's charge holder. It should be interesting.
 
Over the past weekend, I took a shot at a 2 stager (a G to an F) , it failed pretty spectacularly (little too heavy for the G), and so I admire your successes in this space of rocketry which is super hard. :)
 
Tomorrow I'll get to try out the new Blue Raven ground test feature on a real ground test, to size up how much BP I want to put into the booster's charge holder. It should be interesting.
I did the ground test yesterday using 0.25 grams of BP. Here's the slo-mo video. Since the Blue Raven was buried in the middle of a carbon fiber airframe, I had to hold the phone close to keep it connected for the ground test. The ejection seemed like it was fast and had some overkill but wasn't damaging, so I think I got it about right on the first try.


Over the past weekend, I took a shot at a 2 stager (a G to an F) , it failed pretty spectacularly (little too heavy for the G), and so I admire your successes in this space of rocketry which is super hard. :)
Not sure 0-7 should count as "success" but I appreciate the kind words for coming close sometimes nonetheless. Hopefully after this weekend I'll have a better record.
 

Attachments

  • 1684951273671.MP4
    3.9 MB
1685219593565.png
Flight #1. The main got pulled out at apogee for some reason, though the main chute charge went off on time, much later. At least I got the sustainer back without a scratch, though quite a distance away. Here is the flight summary data that was available as soon as I walked up to the rocket.

IMG-0983.PNGIMG-0985.PNG
IMG-0987.PNG

Unfortunately, the booter's av-bay was inside a carbon fiber tube that did not allow the tracker to get a GPS lock before launch, and there was also no GPS lock after the av-bay was ejected during the time I was monitoring it. So the booster is currently in an unknown location. I'm hoping that someone flying at the site after me was also using a Featherweight tracker and so may have picked up lost rocket packets. If this applies to anyone reading this, please check under More/found to see if you have any lost/found packets today.

I'll post more analysis from the high rate and low rate data later, probably tomorrow.
 

Attachments

  • 1685218945679.png
    1685218945679.png
    12.8 KB · Views: 0
  • 1685219574136.png
    1685219574136.png
    12.8 KB · Views: 0
View attachment 582720
Flight #1. The main got pulled out at apogee for some reason, though the main chute charge went off on time, much later. At least I got the sustainer back without a scratch, though quite a distance away. Here is the flight summary data that was available as soon as I walked up to the rocket.

View attachment 582716View attachment 582717
View attachment 582718

Unfortunately, the booter's av-bay was inside a carbon fiber tube that did not allow the tracker to get a GPS lock before launch, and there was also no GPS lock after the av-bay was ejected during the time I was monitoring it. So the booster is currently in an unknown location. I'm hoping that someone flying at the site after me was also using a Featherweight tracker and so may have picked up lost rocket packets. If this applies to anyone reading this, please check under More/found to see if you have any lost/found packets today.

I'll post more analysis from the high rate and low rate data later, probably tomorrow.
Hey Adrian, I will be flying a single stage K record attempt tomorrow with a featherweight gps and should be going pretty high. Ill let you know if I pick up anything. I saw the flight and it was beautiful!
 
Adrian --

Dang ! Sorry about your Booster.

I hope it turns up.

What a flight on the Sustanier !

I love the Velocity reduction between 6000 and 9000 ft.

Was that GPS Lockout or a Long Coast ?

How long after Booster Burn-Out did you lite the Sustainer Motor ?

What motors did you end up flying ( Loki J474 -to- CTI J160 6GXL mellow yellow ) ?

Beautiful Data !

-- kjh
 
Loki J474 to CTI I125

It was a very long coast, but it was straight enough to be ok. The Blue Raven’s new future angle trigger is what did it, where it looks ahead to what the angle will be 3 seconds from now. I was glad to have it because the motor took a full 2 seconds to come up to pressure. The apogee was pretty close to the pad, but I didn’t do a good enough job separating the nosecone ejection harness from the main chute harness and the nosecone ejection pulled the main out.
 
Adrian --

Oops, yes. That's what you said in Post #31 above ( Loki J474 -to- CTI I125 ).

29.4K ft is an astonishing but totally credible altitude for 1276 N-sec up there in the mountains !

That certainly knocks the sox off the current 18.4K ft Tripoli multi-stage record as well as the 23.7 K single-stage record.

And the Inertial Altitude at 30.7K ft is impressively close to the GPS Altitude ( about 4% ).

Nice job, Adrian !

The Blue Raven Future Angle Trigger feature is very innovative ( enough so that I have dusted off my old 2-stage designs ).

But before I go there, I'll need to upgrade my old Walston Dog Tracker with a new GPS Tracker :)

I don't fully understand your description of the recovery failure but I'll save my Qs for another day.

Fly high !

-- kjh

p.s. No biggie but one additional nice to have parameter for the flight summary would be Atmospheric Pressure on the Pad :)
 
Last edited:
Adrian,

Did you find your booster? I sure hope so. I know you put a lot of work into those min dia birds.
No, the booster is still missing. I have resolved to put a fiberglass window in my boosters near the GPS antenna from now on. Another thing that might have helped is powering on the tracker with the av-bay outside the rocket and getting a GPS lock on a bunch of satellites before buttoning it up. That could have helped the GPS re-acquire more quickly after the av-bay was ejected. It was a little too much to ask of the GPS to power up within a shielded enclosure, hang out there for an hour, and then have its first view of satellites be with a ton of dynamics and vertical motion.

That makes two carbon fiber boosters lost in the last month (the first one didn't have a tracker because of the GPS challenge and because I thought it would stay in sight)

I'll post more data from the sustainer later today.
 
Just read through this thread. Fascinating stuff. I've been eyeballing the Blue Raven so I'm very interested in how you're programming the air start.

If I understand it correctly, you're using a logic OR channel to give the sustainer two possible scenarios for ignition? First scenario is the ideal case, nice straight launch, in which case you are happy to let it coast to eek out some extra altitude before lighting the sustainer when velocity falls below the set threshold? And second scenario is where it's not at the ideal straight up launch angle in which case you light it earlier before it tilts too much and flies too far down range? And that's driven by the Future Angle parameter which is sort of a derivative function set at 3 seconds in the future? Guessing you run a bunch of sims to see which angles for ignition result in certain horizontal distances from the site. So each logic channel has sort of a gatekeeper that prevents it from firing and it's a race to see if the velocity drops below the threshold first or if the future tilt triggers first. Pretty clever.

I'm looking to use one for a low altitude 2-stage rocket so much of that is well beyond what I need but very cool none the less and definitely helps with understanding the power of these electronics.
 
Just read through this thread. Fascinating stuff. I've been eyeballing the Blue Raven so I'm very interested in how you're programming the air start.

If I understand it correctly, you're using a logic OR channel to give the sustainer two possible scenarios for ignition? First scenario is the ideal case, nice straight launch, in which case you are happy to let it coast to eek out some extra altitude before lighting the sustainer when velocity falls below the set threshold? And second scenario is where it's not at the ideal straight up launch angle in which case you light it earlier before it tilts too much and flies too far down range? And that's driven by the Future Angle parameter which is sort of a derivative function set at 3 seconds in the future? Guessing you run a bunch of sims to see which angles for ignition result in certain horizontal distances from the site. So each logic channel has sort of a gatekeeper that prevents it from firing and it's a race to see if the velocity drops below the threshold first or if the future tilt triggers first. Pretty clever.

I'm looking to use one for a low altitude 2-stage rocket so much of that is well beyond what I need but very cool none the less and definitely helps with understanding the power of these electronics.
Yes, you have it right. You can run simulations of a straight flight to see what ignition time provides the highest possible altitude. If the delay is longer than the optimum it causes more gravity loss and a shorter delay causes more aerodynamic drag loss. In the flights I have looked at, the velocity at the optimal delay ranges 250-400 feet per second, depending on the burn duration of the airstart motor, the ignition altitude, among other things. Let's say the optimal delay is 300 feet/second. If I guesstimate that the motor takes 1.5 seconds to come up to pressure, I'll go back in the sim to see what the velocity was 1.5 seconds before the optimal motor start time (lets say 360 feet/second), and set up one of the Blue Raven's four output channels with the "velocity driven" airstart sub-option to trigger at 360 feet/second.

But if the flight doesn't get off to a very straight start, the tilt may start out ok, but get to an unacceptable point before it slows down to the optimal speed. In these cases you want to ignite earlier (sometimes much earlier) than what you would for a straight flight. The other airstart channel is set up to trigger when the tilt under a conservative ignition delay assumption (+3 seconds) is the largest tilt I want to tolerate. I get the "OR" capability by electrically connecting the same igniter to both output channels. I'll pick the future tilt threshold based on simulation runs where assume a strong crosswind for weathercocking, or just assume a bad rail angle like 10 degrees to simulate a big wobble after launch, and then watch to see how far downrange the rocket could go when I adjust those sim values and the 2nd stage ignition time. In the simulations I have run, the downrange distance at apogee is mostly dependent on the tilt at ignition, whether I had the rocket wait a longer time with a less severe initial tilt, or if it ignites sooner after a big initial tilt. This means the future angle trigger gives the desired result for a wide variety of cases.

This thread covers the future tilt trigger in more detail.
 
First the narrative, and then the data:

Saturday morning, I turned on the Blue Ravens and trackers in the sustainer and the booster, and they both were adequate for battery state of charge. I knew I wanted to go early because of the predicted rising wind, so Vic Davis and I got first in line to go out to my tower which we set up the day before. I turned on the sustainer tracker outside of the tower so it would get a good lock on a bunch of satellites. With the Blue Raven confirmed off, I installed the sustainer nozzle and then we got the rocket loaded in no problem. It's a 12' tower but the rails slide out at the bottom so we could do everything upright. I angled the tower a smidgen downwind, to the Northwest, to reduce the effect of weathercocking. I turned on the sustainer Blue Raven, got the expected main and Apogee continuity voltages, turned on the booster and did the same. Now the rocket was safe to arm the airstart, so I screwed in the screw switch, and.... the continuity voltages didn't change. the sustainer igniter was not connected for some reason. Time to recycle.

Back at camp, I had to take everything apart to find the ignition wire problem, which was that a wire broke where I had stripped it with the wrong setting on my wire strippers and then somehow put a bunch of twists on the motor connection. I re-connected the wires, re-inserted the motor (sans nozzle) and av-bay, re-connected the deployment wires, re-arranged and re-taped the deployment harnesses around the chute cannon, and fiddled with that, adding more and more tape as needed until I could get the nosecone fully seated. Finally we got back out to the pad, got everything set up the same way, and this time when I turned the screw switch to close it, the 3rd and 4th channels went to the battery voltage. With everything else done, I armed the channels through the app and walked away, keeping an eye on the tracker performance.

Back at the LCO table, things were busy well-organized. I bet there were over 1000 flights through the weekend. Matt and all the volunteers did a great job. When my turn came, the Loki J474 lit up with that brilliant purple laser flame out at the 500' pad area and it looked like a clean, straight boost. I sort of saw the rocket separate, and then it was gone, time to watch the GPS. After a few seconds I started getting good-looking GPS data and I watched the vertical velocity go down, down, down below 300 feet/second. 15 seconds from liftoff is a long time. Just when I thought the motor wasn't going to light, the velocity numbers started to go up again and I looked up and saw the nice white trail going nearly straight up, but with some obvious corkscrewing. The altitude went through 26,000, 27,000, 28,000 and 29,000 feet and I was overjoyed. The downward velocity went to 40 feet/second, and I was relieved that the apogee charge deployment worked. Yay! Wait, the velocity is still only 40 feet/second. Uh oh, the main chute came out somehow. I saw how slowly the altitude was coming down, and nervously watched the horizontal position as Saturday's 45 knot upper level winds took it to the northeast toward Alamosa. I briefly switched the phone and ground station over to look at the booster, and I saw that I was getting packets from it, but there was no GPS lock yet. I went back and forth a couple more times with the same result, and before long, the booster was down and I didn't know where. Meanwhile, the sustainer kept drifting away. After it landed, I copied the coordinates into Google Maps and drove off to get it. It was just to the east of one of the North-south roads. I was picturing it hung up on one of the overhead wires, or in some of the trees that border the road around there, but I lucked out, and it landed cleanly in the brush, with everything intact. I didn't see it until I was within about 10 feet:


IMG-0979 (1).jpg
Sustainer body showing the chute, chute cannon, and nosecone ejector piston

IMG-0980 (1).jpg
Here's the nosecone (in the bush) and the road. If the overhead wires were on the other side of the road I could have been in trouble.

I checked out the flight summary data and saw immediately that the main chute charge fired at 793 seconds into the flight, at low altitude. So the problem of the early main deployment wasn't software. On Sunday when I was prepping the upper stage for another flight, I saw that I had tied on the nosecone ejection piston to the harness going to the nosecone rather than the chute, and I figured that when the nosecone was ejected, it pulled the nosecone ejection piston with it, and then a bunch of the rest of the main chute harness it was taped to, and pulled the main chute out. In the landing photo you can also see the nosecone ejection piston tied to the harness that leads back to the nosecone. But today I looked closely at the electrical data, and the main chute continuity voltage didn't look right for that:
1685391908485.png
The main charge continuity voltage does go to 0V for 1 second at the main deployment altitude when it should, but starting it apogee the continuity voltage dropped to about 2V. Normally that kind of drop happens after a charge has fired, and if it were intact I would have expected it to stay at 4V. Then I just remembered that I saw a hole burned in the chute, which normally never happens, but could happen if the nosecone were still on when the main charge went off. If it had gotten pulled out of the chute cannon before the main charge went off, it wouldn't have gotten burned. So maybe I swapped the wires when I connected everything back up? But in that case, the apogee ejection charge wires would have broken before the main channel fired, and there was definitely charge residue I cleaned out the nosecone piston afterward. Now I think I pinched some wires when I screwed down the chute cannon, and the apogee and main wires were connected and fired together. The view photo below is from Balls rather than from this flight, but it gives the idea:

IMG-9832.jpg
Lots of opportunity for pinching, when the bolt is tightened down, especially near the central bolt or on top of either the main or apogee threaded rod tops.

When the chute cannon charge fired and the apogee piston was yanked off, the apogee wires were broken by the nosecone piston getting blown off of the end of the main chute cannon, which would explain why the main channel is has a different continuity voltage than the apogee channel after apogee.

Once last year when I was doing a ground test with this setup I also had both charges go off simultaneously. I couldn't pin that one down (no altimeter there to record continuity voltages) and that problem never repeated since then, but I'm convinced now that's what happened Saturday.

The acceleration data around the apogee charge doesn't give a lot of insight into the cause but doesn't rule out the pinched wire and simultaneous firing:
1685395658355.png

In the plot above, I reversed the signs of the raw data so that the X axis is pointed up along the rocket. When the initial charge(s) fired, there is a pretty big spike downward, but it's not the clean single spike I'm used to. The next spike is when the nosecone takes the slack out of its shock cord, and then I think the next chaotic part is when the chute inflates. There aren't any more large acceleration events during the length of the high rate data, which ends 6.4 minutes into the flight when that memory allocation is full.

So I think that explains the main chute deployment. Let's look at the rest of the flight:
1685396334322.png

1685396516391.png

The GPS and baro sensors had their normal lag, but when the GPS figured out what was up, it matched the inertial navigation altitude up until the second burn. At that point, the roll gyro measurement got saturated at 2200 degrees/second so the inertial navigation would not be expected to match very well after that.

1685397651699.png
Interesting how the roll rate ramps up quickly during the initial burn and then goes up even faster after immediately after sustainer separation, and that the rotation rate goes up and down after the 2nd burn, maybe because of Mach transition effects?. Here is the velocity:


The GPS horizontal velocity was only 14-18 feet/second during the first coast. Here is the tilt:
1685398408943.png

The GPS flight path angle is going to be different from the tilt because of the crosswind. If the rocket is tilted into a crosswind, it can have a tilt even if the flight path angle is perfectly vertical. I think some of that was going on here. The upper level winds were expected to be about 45 knots. The horizontal velocity measured by the GPS when it was coming down on the main chute was around 80 feet/second at the higher elevations:

1685398762344.png
(BTW, James Russell just texted me that my booster has been found!)

I'll start another post so I can add more images....
 

Attachments

  • 1685397936650.png
    1685397936650.png
    97.6 KB · Views: 0
Here's the first burn. The third chuff did the trick:

1685399188651.png

The rocket left the 12' high tower in 0.15 seconds, with an exit velocity of 190 feet/second (130 mph).

Here is a closeup of the tilt. What's up with the oscillations? Each hump in the graph below is almost definitely a roll rotation. The oscillations in tilt could be from the rocket actually coning (spinning around an axis that is not the rocket's axis of symmetry). It could also be from the altimeter having some error in its determination of what the axis of rotation of the rocket is. The Blue Raven captures the first motion of the rocket up to liftoff detection and assumes that that is the direction of the rocket's axis of symmetry. If that is off by a few degrees from a combination of the rocket bouncing in the tower, or some flex in the altimeter's mounting relative to the rocket structure, then there could be a few degrees difference between the measurement of the first motion direction and the actual rocket axis.
1685399670981.png
The fact that the oscillation is so much larger during the second burn than when the burn is done leads me to believe that at least most of this is from real coning of the rocket. The second burn has an offset propellant mass and an offset core, and the oscillation mostly goes away after the burn is done. I have struggled with this sustainer body and nosecone to get the nosecone aligned, and I think that misalignment caused a measurable angle of attack. The tilt plot back in post # 20 of this thread was from a flight with the same nosecone but a different sustainer body that has a longer coupler for the nosecone. The roll rate on this sustainer body is just really high. The fins look straight but they must be a bit off.
 
Adrian said: (BTW, James Russell just texted me that my booster has been found!)

kjh said: woo hoo !

p.s. Wonderful Narrative and Data but I am just finishing with a Customer after a long day. I'll look more closely tomorrow.

Thanks for sharing your stuff, Adrian !
 
Last edited:
Now that I have my booster back, here are some combined plots:

First up, the accelerations during the first motor burn, with the data from the Blue Ravens of both stages superimposed:

1685496723632.png
When I zoom in on the separation, there's something I find quite surprising:
1685496819307.png

After the separation, I expected the drag deceleration of the booster to go way up, since now it's flying without a nosecone and it lost the mass of its propellant. But the drag deceleration of the sustainer also doubled, from 0.7 Gs to 1.5 Gs. I wonder if it is due to the delay smoke of the booster motor reducing base drag, or maybe the sustainer nosecone alignment is just that bad that it was helpful to have the booster attached to keep it straight. The stack was going about 980 feet/second, about Mach 0.87 during the separation.
 
Adrian --

Maybe the noted change in Drag is because the ballistic coefficients of the Booster and the Sustainer changed suddenly at separation ?

IOW, the individual accelerometers each felt real but different changes in the effect of the Drag force due to F = ma ...

EDIT: I should have said: a = F / m ...

If you know the masses of the components, could not this effect could be back-calculated ?

-- kjh
 
Last edited:
Adrian --

Maybe the noted change in Drag is because the ballistic coefficients of the Booster and the Sustainer changed suddenly at separation ?

IOW, the individual accelerometers each felt real but different changes in the effect of the Drag force due to F = ma ...

EDIT: I should have said: a = F / m ...

If you know the masses of the components, could not this effect could be back-calculated ?

-- kjh
Yes, the ballistic coefficient of the combined stack would be expected to be higher than for the individual booster, but I'm surprised that the ballistic coefficient of the stack with a burned motor in the booster would be higher than that for the sustainer by itself.

The sustainer is full of propellant, it's short, and it even has a bit of tailcone, so its ballistic coefficient should be high. The booster is long, and relatively light, so I would have expected it to be just a drag pulling back on the sustainer. But apparently the sustainer's base drag going up, plus loss of the booster's momentum, outweighed the drag of the booster. The booster's base drag should have been even higher than that of the sustainer because it had no tailcone. I wonder how much the booster's base drag is reduced from the delay grain still burning. I think for tomorrow's flight I'll delay the separation a bit longer and see how the accelerations look with that strategy.
 
After losing two boosters due mostly to not having GPS availability through the carbon airframe, I decided to try making an RF-transparent window.
First, cut a hole that's about the size of the GPS antenna with a hole saw. I tested the av-bay in place with motors blocking each end of the airframe, and while the GPS didn't get enough signal to lock after a couple of minutes, after I locked the GPS first outside of the airframe, when I put it back in the signal strength was enough to track.

When I cut the hole, I used an old 1.5" OD Al mandrel as a backer. Then I used a Dremel to bevel the edge of the hole so that the FG would have more area to grab onto. I put the mandrel back in with some mylar and a few layers of blue tape for thickness on the opposite side so the mylar would be pressed firmly into place on the inside of the tube.


IMG-1008.jpg

Next I kept laying in small pieces of medium-weight FG cloth until I was sure it was thicker than the surrounding tube:
IMG-1009.jpg

Then sanded it flush:
IMG-1015.jpg

The Mylar came out easily, and the inside of the tube seems to still be perfectly smooth. No epoxy leaked past the edge of the hole.

The fiberglass window feels hard, but I won't know if it will stand up to the ejection charge pressure and the other stresses until I fly it tomorrow.

Tomorrow I'll be back at the NCR North site, and I'll fly an AT I600 (the first motor that really set the hook into me for the hobby after my L1 cert) as the booster followed by the J94 that I forgot to arm the last time I was at the North site. They combine for a 97% J impulse, and sim around 27,000 feet.
 
Yes, the ballistic coefficient of the combined stack would be expected to be higher than for the individual booster, but I'm surprised that the ballistic coefficient of the stack with a burned motor in the booster would be higher than that for the sustainer by itself.

The sustainer is full of propellant, it's short, and it even has a bit of tailcone, so its ballistic coefficient should be high. The booster is long, and relatively light, so I would have expected it to be just a drag pulling back on the sustainer. But apparently the sustainer's base drag going up, plus loss of the booster's momentum, outweighed the drag of the booster. The booster's base drag should have been even higher than that of the sustainer because it had no tailcone. I wonder how much the booster's base drag is reduced from the delay grain still burning. I think for tomorrow's flight I'll delay the separation a bit longer and see how the accelerations look with that strategy.
Adrian --

What I meant by Balistic Coefficient in this case is the Mass behind the Frontal Area of the Rocket.

Before separation, there is more mass behind the frontal area of the Rocket and the mass of the System is mass( Booster ) + mass( Sustainer ).

And before separation, both Blue Ravens are experiencing the same acceleration due to Aerodynamic Drag ( and OBTW -- the Data from the two Blue Ravens before separation is astoundingly consistent ! ).

However, the instant the stack separates, each of the individual Blue Ravens will experience a sudden deceleration because the Booster lost the mass of the Sustainer and the Sustainer lost the mass of the Booster.

And since a = F / m where F is the Drag Force, the Sustainer should see a sudden deceleration because it lost the mass of the Booster.

One Q ... I didn't see the Velocity -vs- time Plots so I am guessing the stack was supersonic or close to it when the Sustainer separated from the Booster ...

EDIT: oops i see in your text that v = 0.87 mach at separation.

How much Velocity did the Sustainer gain ( and the Booster lose ) due to the kick from the separation charge ?

Can you even see the delta-v due to the separation charge ?

Does this sound plausable ?

-- kjh

EDIT[ 2 ] - I've been researching this a bit and the term I was trying to describe is 'Sectional Density' more than Ballistic Coefficient
 
Last edited:
After losing two boosters due mostly to not having GPS availability through the carbon airframe, I decided to try making an RF-transparent window.
<snip>

That's beautiful !

Good luck with tomorrow's flight Adrian.

-- kjh
Well, this weekend's NCR launch has been cancelled. :(

Bummer :(

I am keeping my eye on the weather here hoping for a decent day Saturday so I can finally fly my Blue Raven at the AARG Launch.

-- kjh
 
Back on the topic of the combined vs separate drag, this earlier post:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...controlled-by-blue-ravens.179413/post-2421580shows data from a previous flight where the sustainer drag acceleration was reduced as soon as the booster separated. This was the same booster, but a better-aligned sustainer. The simulations also show an expected reduction in the sustainer deceleration after separation.
 
Woo Hoo ! Fun stuff !

Here is a zoomed-in image from an OpenRocket sim on a 29mm booster with an H220T and a 24mm sustainer with a G55.

h220-g55-show-drag-increase.png

Booster separation is at 0.5 sec after 1st stage burnout ( at about t +1.4 sec )

Note that the magnitude of the deceleration due to the Drag Force increases on the Booster as expected ( the lower red line ).

And also on the Sustainer after separation by just a bit because coast phase deceleration is a result of Drag divided by Mass of the Sustainer alone ( upper red line ).

Or am I missing something here ?

Thanks Adrian !

-- kjh
 
Woo Hoo ! Fun stuff !

Here is a zoomed-in image from an OpenRocket sim on a 29mm booster with an H220T and a 24mm sustainer with a G55.

View attachment 584596

Booster separation is at 0.5 sec after 1st stage burnout ( at about t +1.4 sec )

Note that the magnitude of the deceleration due to the Drag Force increases on the Booster as expected ( the lower red line ).

And also on the Sustainer after separation by just a bit because coast phase deceleration is a result of Drag divided by Mass of the Sustainer alone ( upper red line ).

Or am I missing something here ?

Thanks Adrian !

-- kjh
How interesting. That's not what I have seen in my sims so far. If the booster is heavy enough and low enough drag, and the sustainer is light enough and relatively high drag I guess I could see it. Usually my rockets are the other way around at separation.
 
How interesting. That's not what I have seen in my sims so far. If the booster is heavy enough and low enough drag, and the sustainer is light enough and relatively high drag I guess I could see it. Usually my rockets are the other way around at separation.
Yes, and none of the Sim Programs that I know of account for a separation charge which kicks the booster backward and the sustainer forward.

I see the accelerations at separation in your plots ... maybe the pressure force in the separation charge cavity affect delta-v of the sustainer ?

It's pretty chaotic up there, but there is a lot of good, 500 Hz data to maybe find a little order :)

Thanks Adrian !

-- kjh
 
Back
Top