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.
I look at the change in acceleration at separation as sort of a poor-mans method of determining whether drag separation would be expected. It's a bit of a simplification since the sustainer has base drag after separation but not in the stack. But, if acceleration doesn't change or becomes less negative after separation, then it's more likely to drag separate. I've looked at a few flight results from this perspective, but someday I'll go through more of them to investigate how good of a predictor this is.

I was looking at some data yesterday where I noticed, like your flight, that the booster drag didn't immediately increase after separation. I was wondering if the booster was sort of drafting against the sustainer.

Jim
 
Really enjoying this thread, Adrian.

Goes to show you don't need to fly big EX M/N/O motors to get serious altitude.

I look forward to the day I get some time to be able to play with these "little" two stagers. I have quite a few parts in my supply box that I acquired for the purpose of two stage fun.

Thanks for sharing, and really appreciate your lessons learned.

Mike
 
I haven't gotten around to showing plots of the ignition of the last flight until now.

The last flight had the third and fourth Blue Raven channels connected to the sustainer igniter. The third channel is shown below. It was set up for the optimistic case where the flight was straight enough that the ignition could wait until the velocity drops down to velocity that optimizes altitude for a straight flight (based on RASAero sims). Knowing that there would be some ignition delay, I looked earlier in the sim to see what the velocity was 1.5 seconds before the start of the sim acceleration. In this case that was 300 feet/second, and so I used that for the third channel velocity trigger. In flight, the velocity did actually go down that low before the sustainer motor acceleration really started:
1686193987091.png
You can see that in the flight events for the third channel, when the "less than Vel1" goes true right about 15 seconds.
1686193530521.png

But the third channel wasn't what actually ignited the motor, because the fourth channel fired first, at 13.488 seconds:
1686193423963.png
I set up the fourth channel to fire if the expected tilt angle 3 seconds into the future exceeds a threshold of 13 degrees, as long as the vertical velocity is under 800 feet/second, altitude is over 500 feet, and the current angle is under 18 degrees. Here is what the tilt angle did during the flight:

1686194415785.png
Once the oscillations settled out, the future tilt angle did a pretty good job of predicting what the tilt would be three seconds into the future. Zooming into the ignition, the future tilt trigger was met at 13.468 seconds into the flight:

1686194555546.png

That's when the switch turned on. I'm pretty pleased with the plot above, because at the time of the ignition, the tilt was about 10 degrees. But the motor took about 2 seconds to come up to pressure, and 3 seconds after the future angle was triggered, the tilt angle was about 13 degrees. That put the sustainer apogee about a mile from the launch pad, (determined afterwards from the GPS data), which is consistent with what the simulations were predicting for the downrange distance.

The ignition itself is pretty interesting. Here are plots of the acceleration and the electrical data plotted on approximately the same timescale:
1686195449632.png
1686195463839.png
The fourth channel fired at 13.508 seconds, and at first there was wasn't much change to the measured electrical current or the acceleration. That output fired for 1 second, and presumably it did start the ignition process. Once the switch turned off, the voltage across the switch went back up to the battery voltage, and then some. I don't have a good explanation for why the measured voltage was briefly higher than the battery voltage. Maybe some electrochemical effect from the burning igniter? When the third channel met its criteria at 15.17 seconds, it turned on. This time, the current went up over an amp, because the third channel was firing into an igniter that was already ignited and was on its way to pressurizing the motor. As the motor started to come up to pressure, the current initially dropped and then went back up again. The motor fully pressurized at 15.59 seconds and there was relatively high current at the end of the 1-second firing duration, when the ignition wire stubs were connected together by the incandescent motor exhaust. Here's a closeup of the motor pressurization:

1686196149507.png
It took 2.0 seconds for the motor to go from electrical signal to first acceleration, and then another 0.1 seconds for it to get to max acceleration.
 
I was looking at some data yesterday where I noticed, like your flight, that the booster drag didn't immediately increase after separation. I was wondering if the booster was sort of drafting against the sustainer.

Jim
In my flights, the booster drag acceleration goes up immediately, so it's pretty interesting that it didn't for one of yours. I like your drafting idea.
 
In my flights, the booster drag acceleration goes up immediately, so it's pretty interesting that it didn't for one of yours. I like your drafting idea.
In that particular flight, separation was by the pressure generated by the igniter. The team involved didn't have continuity to the separation charge, but we anticipated that the igniter could do the separation and it did. The data suggest that it might have drafted for 0.3 seconds, with a noisy increase in deceleration over that period.

Looks like you had some coning during your motor burn. The flight I referenced above had the same thing. Would be intersting to look at your roll rate during that period.

Jim
 
... <<snip>> Looks like you had some coning during your motor burn ... <<snip>>

Anyone ...

When using separation charges, how does one make sure that the velocity vectors are aligned with the long axis of the rocket ?

Couldn't the separation charge impart a little wiggle in the trajectory of the sustainer when it finally separates ?

-- kjh
 
Anyone ...

When using separation charges, how does one make sure that the velocity vectors are aligned with the long axis of the rocket ?

Couldn't the separation charge impart a little wiggle in the trajectory of the sustainer when it finally separates ?

-- kjh
Good question.

My 2-stage has an inter-stage coupler just over 1 cal of BT diameter (just under 3 inch). The fit is quite close and smooth.
Quantum and Proton data showed a smooth separation. Used 0.4 gram BP to separate with Proton. When flying the Quantum, motor ignition did the separation.

I guess airspeed (Mach number) may have an interesting effect during separation.
 
Adrian --

I keep coming back to this thread -- there is so much to study here.

The increased sustainer drag after separation is haunting me.

I've not found it if you posted it, but it might be interesting to see Acceleration -vs- time as in post #50 AND Tilt -vs- Time as in post #63 on a single graph.

Say, from Sustainer separation at t = 1.6 sec until Sustainer Ignition at t = 15.5 or so ...

I wonder if one could associate the unexpexcted Sustainer Drag Increase with the oscillations in the tilt ( AoA ) -vs- time readings.

And that's what you said in the first place, way back in post #48 :) )

Is that why you're making a new 38 mm nose cone ?

-- kjh
 
I blame the coning on the shorter sustainer body I used for that flight. It didn't have enough exposed coupler to keep the nosecone tip centered. And the way I had the shock cord arranged around the chute cannon was pushing it to one side, I think. With the somewhat longer sustainer body that also happens to have a longer exposed coupler, with the same nosecone I got the straightest flight I have ever gotten, shown on post #20. By the way, that one shows the expected decrease in sustainer drag deceleration after booster separation.

I'm making the new nosecone because the nose weight in my existing cone is far over ideal, and I want the back end of it to use the 1.59" OD tubing I'm using for the sustainer body. I'm re-doing the chute cannon because I needed to redesign for redundant deployment electronics, and at the same time I think I can make the overall assembly considerably shorter by using a 29mm airframe tube for the chute cannon rather than 24, and stuffing the shock cord in front of the chute cannon for the apogee deployment, and inside the chute cannon for the main chute deployment.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply Adrian.

First of all, I am in no way questioning your designs -- you are several orders of magnitude ahead of anything I am capable of !

And I certainly don't mean to annoy or distract you from your significant list of tasks-at-hand.

I am simply curious by nature and I am just trying to catch up with the state of the art -- rocketry has progressed unimaginably in the past 20 years while I was away.

And I am totaly amazed that we can now capture more-or-less complete inertial flight data in a hobby rocket.

Having said that ... yes, the Sustainer acceleration profile after separation for the earlier flight in Post #20 did seem completely different from the later flight in Post #47 -- Sustainer acceleration for the earlier flight was more like one would expect to see considering the forces and relative masses before and after separation.

I have to say that I love the Blue Raven's Data Sets -- there is enough info in each flight to keep me busy on Data Reduction and Analysis for years and years :)

Thanks for the Blue Raven and for all you do for the Hobby Adrian.

-- kjh
 
Back
Top