Estes Saturn V 1:100 recovery questions

[bobbyg23]

I am currently building this rocket and the front recovery seems weird to me. I was wondering if there is a different method that anybody could think of to get the front half back to earth safely without breaking the tower off the top? For some reason I don't like the idea of the string coming out of the joint where separation occurs. Seems like it would be a place where binding could occur and cause issues. Would it be an issue to have the upper section stay attached to the main body with a shock cord so it would come down as 1 piece instead of 2 pieces and maybe use 3 parachutes in the main body?

 

[Antares JS]

I will point out that a little piece of thread isn't going to cause binding at the separation joint. I've launched an Estes Saturn V in the stock configuration successfully many times.

That said, if you really wanted to keep it together in one piece, you could just attach one of the main body shock cords to the top and configure it like a regular nose. I don't know of any way to prevent the nose from pointing at the ground though aside from the two-point cradle stock configuration.

 

[bobbyg23]

I will point out that a little piece of thread isn't going to cause binding at the separation joint. I've launched an Estes Saturn V in the stock configuration successfully many times.

That said, if you really wanted to keep it together in one piece, you could just attach one of the main body shock cords to the top and configure it like a regular nose. I don't know of any way to prevent the nose from pointing at the ground though aside from the two-point cradle stock configuration.

Thanks for that info.

 

[AfterBurners]

You can launch it with both pieces attached to one shock cord lime any other rocket. I would probably use a larger chute or add another making it 3. If the tower breaks off just glue no biggie.

 

[bobbyg23]

You can launch it with both pieces attached to one shock cord lime any other rocket. I would probably use a larger chute or add another making it 3. If the tower breaks off just glue no biggie.

That is what I was thinking if doing it as 1 piece. Either use 3 chutes or 2 bigger ones.

 

[AfterBurners]

That is what I was thinking if doing it as 1 piece. Either use 3 chutes or 2 bigger ones.

Make sure you use a long shock cord and the two pieces have enough space between each other. You'll be fine

 

[kuririn]

You can use a flight only capsule without the tower and keep the full capsule/tower for display only.
Then rig the recovery gear normally (i.e. traditionally).
Solves both problems.
I use balsa "boilerplate" capsules w/o towers for flying.
After spending countless hours constructing a tower from dowels the last thing you want is to see it splinter apart upon landing.


Cheers.

 

[AfterBurners]

You can use a flight only capsule without the tower and keep the full capsule/tower for display only.
Then rig the recovery gear normally (i.e. traditionally).
Solves both problems.
I use balsa "boilerplate" capsules w/o towers for flying.
After spending countless hours constructing a tower from dowels the last thing you want is to see it splinter apart upon landing.

View attachment 419697
Cheers.

that works too

 

[mikec]

The Saturn V can be tricky to rig. I've broken my tower every time I've flown it. Make sure to tie everything as described in the instructions.

Sure, you can fly it without the tower if the non-scale appearance doesn't bother you.

I have an alternate Skylab upper section that just comes down nose-first, and that's robust since there's nothing to break.

The Semroc Saturn IB recovers the capsule and tower by itself, and that seems more robust since it comes down slower. I think the original Estes K-36 version released in 1969 worked this way also; the kit we have today is a hybrid of the Estes and Centuri versions from way back then.

 

[AfterBurners]

The Saturn V can be tricky to rig. I've broken my tower every time I've flown it. Make sure to tie everything as described in the instructions.

Sure, you can fly it without the tower if the non-scale appearance doesn't bother you.

I have an alternate Skylab upper section that just comes down nose-first, and that's robust since there's nothing to break.

The Semroc Saturn IB recovers the capsule and tower by itself, and that seems more robust since it comes down slower. I think the original Estes K-36 version released in 1969 worked this way also; the kit we have today is a hybrid of the Estes and Centuri versions from way back then.

I believe I saw the Estes 1969 kit for sale on Belleville hobbies. Not sure if the spelling is correct?

 

[mikec]

I believe I saw the Estes 1969 kit for sale on Belleville hobbies. Not sure if the spelling is correct?

No, the most recent version has the number 1969 but I was talking about the original Estes kit that came out in the *year* 1969, with the kit number K-36. https://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/k-36.htm

 

[AfterBurners]

No, the most recent version has the number 1969 but I was talking about the original Estes kit that came out in the *year* 1969, with the kit number K-36. https://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/k-36.htm

I know nothing about the 2 kits. How are they different? Is the older kit K36 made better?

 

[mikec]

I know nothing about the 2 kits. How are they different? Is the older kit K36 made better?

It's really only of historical interest since the K-36 has been OOP for 40+ years and you are never likely to see one. The only interesting thing relative to this thread is that I believe the K-36 had a stuffer tube with the same OD as the Apollo capsule, and all of the chutes deployed from this tube, with the capsule/tower coming down on its own small chute.

The Saturn V kit has existed in many different variants over the years; look through various reviews on rocketreviews.com, old catalogs, etc. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses but in general the most recent one is probably the easiest to build, though I find the recovery bridle tricky. The next release will have its own Skylab optional nose cone, I think I heard somewhere.

 

[jrap330]

If you have NOT glue on the tower...the original Saturn V in the 1970's.....the tower was removable...Estes and/or Centuri recommended not launching with tower.

 

[PieroAcme]

I am currently building this rocket and the front recovery seems weird to me. I was wondering if there is a different method that anybody could think of to get the front half back to earth safely without breaking the tower off the top? For some reason I don't like the idea of the string coming out of the joint where separation occurs. Seems like it would be a place where binding could occur and cause issues. Would it be an issue to have the upper section stay attached to the main body with a shock cord so it would come down as 1 piece instead of 2 pieces and maybe use 3 parachutes in the main body?

Hi Bobby I want to show my solution.

I did the Estes Saturn V... and I had the same issue. Broken tower.
Launching without LES tower ? .. I think is horrible...
The issue is the structure made in pastic is not robust enough to survive the hits that are taken during re-entry and landing.
The use of wires to get an horizontal position is better than nothing, but not enough. It don't solve the real problem.
So how to make it more robust ?
I did a litte add. I put a wood stick in the middle of the capsule. It is passing trough all capsule structure and I use to hold the eyebolt too.
I found this solution, tested the 1st time on the Estes Saturn V, very effective. Since I adopted I newer broken a tower in all of my scale models in hundred of launches.
If tower is broken... it means that the model is completely destroyed. So the issue is no longer the tower itself.
Here I put the picture of a Saturn V I did. In this case is scratch built, but you can see clearly how it is made.


This is before paint . The stick in this case has the same size of the LES. In the estes one was smaller diameter.

Here after paint and tower structure assembly. You see that painted in black it is not well visible.


In you case you will have to dismoun the tower. Drill one hole in the capsule and into the tower. The Estes LES has a diameter of around 6,5mm . Use a wood stick of 4mm, you'll find easily in the hobby shops. Then glue all back togheter.
You'll see the "broken tower" will be a memory of the past ;-)

 

[PieroAcme]

Here another picture of my Saturn V with a "volunteer astronaut"

Even with daylight the wood stick is hidden.

 

[bobbyg23]

Hi Bobby I want to show my solution.

I did the Estes Saturn V... and I had the same issue. Broken tower.
Launching without LES tower ? .. I think is horrible...
The issue is the structure made in pastic is not robust enough to survive the hits that are taken during re-entry and landing.
The use of wires to get an horizontal position is better than nothing, but not enough. It don't solve the real problem.
So how to make it more robust ?
I did a litte add. I put a wood stick in the middle of the capsule. It is passing trough all capsule structure and I use to hold the eyebolt too.
I found this solution, tested the 1st time on the Estes Saturn V, very effective. Since I adopted I newer broken a tower in all of my scale models in hundred of launches.
If tower is broken... it means that the model is completely destroyed. So the issue is no longer the tower itself.
Here I put the picture of a Saturn V I did. In this case is scratch built, but you can see clearly how it is made.

View attachment 421492
This is before paint . The stick in this case has the same size of the LES. In the estes one was smaller diameter.

Here after paint and tower structure assembly. You see that painted in black it is not well visible.
View attachment 421495

In you case you will have to dismoun the tower. Drill one hole in the capsule and into the tower. The Estes LES has a diameter of around 6,5mm . Use a wood stick of 4mm, you'll find easily in the hobby shops. Then glue all back togheter.
You'll see the "broken tower" will be a memory of the past ;-)

That is an awesome solution. Thanks