How many people have built a space shot rocket?

[Spacedog49Krell]

If Ky Michaelson hadn't pushed through all the government bureaucracy paperwork, we would not be having this discussion. Members of the RRS and RRI were the first to break 50,000 ft and 100,000 ft. Both received visits from US Air Force officials to cease such launches within hours of the launch. Today, we have four private space launch ports. The MTA and FAR in California, Black Rock in Nevada, and Spaceport America in New Mexico. Without the dedication of Ky and all the prior people that pushed the many bureaucratic agencies to ease the regulations it would be illegal for private citizens to launch a rocket into space without official government sponsorship.

 

[NTP2]

If Ky Michaelson hadn't pushed through all the government bureaucracy paperwork, we would not be having this discussion. Members of the RRS and RRI were the first to break 50,000 ft and 100,000 ft. Both received visits from US Air Force officials to cease such launches within hours of the launch. Today, we have four private space launch ports. The MTA and FAR in California, Black Rock in Nevada, and Spaceport America in New Mexico. Without the dedication of Ky and all the prior people that pushed the many bureaucratic agencies to ease the regulations it would be illegal for private citizens to launch a rocket into space without official government sponsorship.

Wow I don’t know that does anyone have more details?

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

What's the real consensus here????? Doc's seems pretty thin to non-existent.

This was (99.9% confidence level) CTI's motor. They then in turn used the rockers design as UP Aerospace's rocket.

 

[AllDigital]

If you want to talk “Virgin Galactic Space” or the USAF 50mi definition, instead of the Karman line, then Kip has clearly done a solo “Space shot rocket”. His two stage rocket is pretty straight forward (6” to 3”) as is his propellant. It is his exceptional engineering and attention to detail and planning (and a small amount of luck from the rocket gods) that have made his launches a success. He built the rockets, motors, machined all the parts, mixed the propellant, and even welded up his own trailer and rail. Although he did get his dad to hold his casting tubes while he poured propellant. While nothing in rocketry is inexpensive, Kip’s choice of rocket diameter and machining skills has kept costs low and don’t require “sponsor” funding.

He has definitely set the bar for the amateur rocketry community.

 

[FredA]

If Ky Michaelson hadn't pushed through all the government bureaucracy paperwork, we would not be having this discussion. Members of the RRS and RRI were the first to break 50,000 ft and 100,000 ft. Both received visits from US Air Force officials to cease such launches within hours of the launch. Today, we have four private space launch ports. The MTA and FAR in California, Black Rock in Nevada, and Spaceport America in New Mexico. Without the dedication of Ky and all the prior people that pushed the many bureaucratic agencies to ease the regulations it would be illegal for private citizens to launch a rocket into space without official government sponsorship.

Got that -- appreciate that -- still outside what we're talking about here.
I fully agree Kip sets the benchmark. However, I don't think he has cross Karman, yet.
Kip-like adventures or similar with more than a single person are what I'm talking about.

 

[bad_idea]

Worth noting that the "Kármán Line" was invented by a lawyer as a legal construct to define a jurisdictional limit to airspace, has only a vague correlation with the altitude at which aerodynamic lift is no longer viable (and then, only an estimate from the 1950s, possibly sourced from conversations with von Kármám, but with little to no reliable attribution, including von Kármám's own ghost-written autobiography which is incredibly vague on the subject), and has no bearing whatsoever on the altitude at which things can stay outside of the atmosphere via achieving orbit.

Also, the Kármán Line was originally defined by said lawyer at around 80km, not far from the US definition of 50 miles, but since the number has pretty much zero significance to anything and is mostly a pretty plaything that can be made prettier by rounding, the FAI's preference for round numbers in metric units quickly dictated 100km as the "official" definition of space.

Now define space.

For our purposes, being in this hobby nearly infinitely removed from orbital velocity and energy, "space" is where the atmosphere becomes insignificant to the flight of our rockets (not to orbital drag, which would itself blow over the idea of the Kármán line). Ergo, I recognize the following as "space shots":

• The George Garboden/Reaction Research Society 50-mile boosted dart in the late '90s.
• The first successful CSXT "go fast" flight (> 100km)
• USC Traveler IV (> 100km)
• Westpoint's 80 km SPEAR flight (used commercial motors but did not recover)
• Kip's 89km MESOS flight last year
• Maybe I missed some?

I leave it mostly to the reader to decide which of these flights they consider to be amateur, though I think it goes without saying that Kip's flight qualifies in this category.

 

[wclaybaugh2]

What's the real consensus here????? Doc's seems pretty thin to non-existent.

I agree that the lack of documentation is very problematic; however, I also accept that the vehicle likely exceeded 100 km given it’s overall performance.

I was disappointed that the “proof” offered at the time was an FAA letter saying they agreed it had exceeded 100 km: I talked with the FAA person who wrote that letter who privately admitted it was a career limiting mistake to have written it.

Members of the payload team would subsequently only cite the FAA letter as proof and refused to discuss their data, leaving the impression they did not have a complete data set.

I was further disappointed years later when Chuck Rogers published a data set that was said to be from on-board. Chuck is a man of very high integrity and I trust his analysis but I also observe discrepancies in the data: centrally, that the nozzle is known to have partially failed toward the end of the burn but the data does not appear to show any sudden loss of acceleration as one would expect. Chuck did note that he had been given “massaged” data and had not seen the raw results.

So I find myself inclined to accept the claim but aware that there will always be an asterisk associated with it.

Bill

 

[wclaybaugh2]

If Ky Michaelson hadn't pushed through all the government bureaucracy paperwork, we would not be having this discussion. Members of the RRS and RRI were the first to break 50,000 ft and 100,000 ft. Both received visits from US Air Force officials to cease such launches within hours of the launch. Today, we have four private space launch ports. The MTA and FAR in California, Black Rock in Nevada, and Spaceport America in New Mexico. Without the dedication of Ky and all the prior people that pushed the many bureaucratic agencies to ease the regulations it would be illegal for private citizens to launch a rocket into space without official government sponsorship.

I was at the RRS dart launch in ‘96 and there was no such “Air Force” visit then or latter so far as I know. (Nor has Chuck Piper ever mentioned any such visits wrt the RRI 100k flights so far as I am aware. We might also note that the Air Force has no jurisdiction in these matters….)

That launch—to about 50 statute miles with 90% confidence—was fully authorized by the FAA under the then rules and involved no significant bureaucratic effort.

As an interested observer and a then USG employee (at NASA) it looked to me like it was Ky who created the drama he then had to fight. Less confrontational and more professional amateurs had gotten permission to fly with no altitude limit at all for the RRS ‘96 dart launch only a few years earlier.

Bill

 

[wclaybaugh2]

Worth noting that the "Kármán Line" was invented by a lawyer as a legal construct to define a jurisdictional limit to airspace, has only a vague correlation with the altitude at which aerodynamic lift is no longer viable (and then, only an estimate from the 1950s, possibly sourced from conversations with von Kármám, but with little to no reliable attribution, including von Kármám's own ghost-written autobiography which is incredibly vague on the subject), and has no bearing whatsoever on the altitude at which things can stay outside of the atmosphere via achieving orbit.

Also, the Kármán Line was originally defined by said lawyer at around 80km, not far from the US definition of 50 miles, but since the number has pretty much zero significance to anything and is mostly a pretty plaything that can be made prettier by rounding, the FAI's preference for round numbers in metric units quickly dictated 100km as the "official" definition of space

This is a very interesting story that I have never heard before.

If I may ask, what is the name of this lawyer and when did she or he make these decisions?

Might I also ask where in the “FAI’s” rules I can find this 100 km definition?

Bill

 

[bad_idea]

If I may ask, what is the name of this lawyer and when did she or he make these decisions?

Might I also ask where in the “FAI’s” rules I can find this 100 km definition?

Andrew G. Haley, who was von Kármán's lawyer at the time Aerojet was founded and was later president of the company. In his time at Aerojet, he became interested in space law, and in the late '50s he proposed the Kármán Line as a boundary past which national airspace jurisdiction should cease. He very loosly based his definition of the line on a paper by von Kármán on aerothermal heating and lift in high speed, high altitude flight and later named it the Kármán line.

In his autobiography, von Kármán takes credit for thinking of the point at which aerodynamic flight was no longer viable as a jurisdictional threshold, but so far as I know it is not mentioned in any of his notes or other writings. I went down a rabbit hole about this once and found nothing that connected von Kármán to the jurisdictional concept of the Kármán line until the autobiography was published years after Haley had coined the term and - presumably - the concept. I did come across a very interesting paper in the Journal of Space Law that sheds light on the subject:

The Non Kármán Line: An Urban Legend of the Space Age by Thomas Gangale

(That article is now helpfuly linked from the Wikipedia page on the Kármán line.)

That rabbit hole I went down started with trying to figure out why people have the the idea of space magically starting at 100km simply because the FAI and others say so (same would for for the US's definition of 50 miles). No airplane can fly remotely near that altitude on lift alone, yet it's far too low for a sustainable orbit. From an aerospace perspective, it's a useless concept. Jurisdictionally it makes more sense but is still arbitrary.

Re. the FAI's definition, it appears in section 2.7.2 of their sporting code for astronautics. They refer to it as the "Von Karman ellipsoid," in deference to the shape of the Earth. Edit to add, back in 2018, the FAI considered lowering their definition to 80km. I don't think anything has come from that yet.

 

[wclaybaugh2]

Andrew G. Haley, who was von Kármán's lawyer at the time Aerojet was founded and was later president of the company. In his time at Aerojet, he became interested in space law, and in the late '50s he proposed the Kármán Line as a boundary past which national airspace jurisdiction should cease. He very loosly based his definition of the line on a paper by von Kármán on aerothermal heating and lift in high speed, high altitude flight and later named it the Kármán line.

In his autobiography, von Kármán takes credit for thinking of the point at which aerodynamic flight was no longer viable as a jurisdictional threshold, but so far as I know it is not mentioned in any of his notes or other writings. I went down a rabbit hole about this once and found nothing that connected von Kármán to the jurisdictional concept of the Kármán line until the autobiography was published years after Haley had coined the term and - presumably - the concept. I did come across a very interesting paper in the Journal of Space Law that sheds light on the subject:

The Non Kármán Line: An Urban Legend of the Space Age by Thomas Gangale

(That article is now helpfuly linked from the Wikipedia page on the Kármán line.)

That rabbit hole I went down started with trying to figure out why people have the the idea of space magically starting at 100km simply because the FAI and others say so (same would for for the US's definition of 50 miles). No airplane can fly remotely near that altitude on lift alone, yet it's far too low for a sustainable orbit. From an aerospace perspective, it's a useless concept. Jurisdictionally it makes more sense but is still arbitrary.

Re. the FAI's definition, it appears in section 2.7.2 of their sporting code for astronautics. They refer to it as the "Von Karman ellipsoid," in deference to the shape of the Earth. Edit to add, back in 2018, the FAI considered lowering their definition to 80km. I don't think anything has come from that yet.

Thanks.

I'm aware of the single report on the European group (including Von Karmen) that got together in the mid-'50's to discuss this issue and the subsequent determination by the FAI that they would use 100km as the differentiator between aeronautical and astronautical records but I was not previously aware of Haley's involvement.

I'm also aware of the proposed 2019 meeting to discuss lowering the line to 80km but am not aware of any result from that meeting, if it occurred.

I personally have two problems with moving the goal post after the fact: taking 80km as definitional means Ky Michelson wasted more than a million dollars pursuing what he reasonably thought was a legitimate record. In addition, the RRS team was quite clear in their flight report in High Power Rocketry that they made no claim to having reached "space" and had no interest in such records; it seems--to me--inappropriate to change the rules a quarter century later for no evident reason beyond personal preference or Virgin Galactic's poor vehicle performance.

Lastly, I would observe that the European Union (and others) continue to use 100km in their proposals to formalize this question in international law; since few nations are proposing any higher altitude (certain equatorial nations propose that their airspace is infinite) it seems to me better to error on the side of the highest recognized altitude rather than to arbitrarily lower the goal after the fact.

Bill

 

[NTP2]

Thanks.

I'm aware of the single report on the European group (including Von Karmen) that got together in the mid-'50's to discuss this issue and the subsequent determination by the FAI that they would use 100km as the differentiator between aeronautical and astronautical records but I was not previously aware of Haley's involvement.

I'm also aware of the proposed 2019 meeting to discuss lowering the line to 80km but am not aware of any result from that meeting, if it occurred.

I personally have two problems with moving the goal post after the fact: taking 80km as definitional means Ky Michelson wasted more than a million dollars pursuing what he reasonably thought was a legitimate record. In addition, the RRS team was quite clear in their flight report in High Power Rocketry that they made no claim to having reached "space" and had no interest in such records; it seems--to me--inappropriate to change the rules a quarter century later for not evident reason beyond personal preference or Virgin Galactic's poor vehicle performance.

Lastly, I would observe the the European Union (and others) continue to use 100km in there proposals to formalize this question in international law; since few nations are proposing any higher altitude (certain equatorial nations propose that their airspace is infinite) it seems to me better to error on the side of the highest recognized altitude rather than to arbitrarily lower the goal after the fact.

Bill

I agree 100km is easy to remember and it’s as good as a definition as you can ask for.

 

[Spacedog49Krell]

I was at the RRS dart launch in ‘96 and there was no such “Air Force” visit then or latter so far as I know. (Nor has Chuck Piper ever mentioned any such visits wrt the RRI 100k flights so far as I am aware. We might also note that the Air Force has no jurisdiction in these matters….)

The Jim Nuding hybrid flights of 1953 from the old RRS/PRS Rosamond launch site broke 50,000 ft. The launch site was just 3 miles outside of MUROC. It was one of the contributing factors for moving to the present Mojave site. The RRI in the early '70's, maybe late '60's, were launching two stage "tar baby" rockets that caught the attention of Fallon AFB. Before the recovery crew returned there were three UH-1's and an irate Lt. Colonel at the Smoke Creek launch site. By 1996, most of the rocket flight issues had been resolved for Black Rock and Smoke Creek.

The MTA and FAR operate under the R-2508 restrictions.

 

[wclaybaugh2]

The Jim Nuding hybrid flights of 1953 from the old RRS/PRS Rosamond launch site broke 50,000 ft. The launch site was just 3 miles outside of MUROC. It was one of the contributing factors for moving to the present Mojave site. The RRI in the early '70's, maybe late '60's, were launching two stage "tar baby" rockets that caught the attention of Fallon AFB. Before the recovery crew returned there were three UH-1's and an irate Lt. Colonel at the Smoke Creek launch site. By 1996, most of the rocket flight issues had been resolved for Black Rock and Smoke Creek.

The MTA and FAR operate under the R-2508 restrictions.

Fallon is a Naval Air Station, not an Air Force Base. If there was a Lt. Col. involved he or she would have had to be a Marine.

In any case, the military have no jurisdiction over the Smoke Creek airspace. What is the source of this story?

Indeed, FAR and the MTA do operate—with permission—in restricted airspace from 7000 feet agl to 60,000 feet agl. What does that have to do with these claims of an “Air Force” reaction to FAA authorized amateur launches?

Bill

 

[DirkTheDaring]

@Kip_Daugirdas got close. 52 miles, IIRC.

I've tried twice. Q to O.
2021: no staging. https://photos.app.goo.gl/jzchxv43u21JJYLSA
2022: booster cato. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Mzi2gpN3uAV37WsG7
2023: life got in the way. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Nuz7q6g54etpUcJ89
2024: ???

Kip, it looks like you hit 242,000 feet and recovered the rocket at FAR, but I don't see any more details than that and your YouTube videos are all older. Now if 242K is what you do when life gets in the way, I can't wait to see what happens when it gets out of the way!

 

[tsmith1315]

Kip, it looks like you hit 242,000 feet and recovered the rocket at FAR, but I don't see any more details than that and your YouTube videos are all older. Now if 242K is what you do when life gets in the way, I can't wait to see what happens when it gets out of the way!

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/project-mesos-a-two-stage-flight-to-293-488-ft.175175/

 

[DirkTheDaring]

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/project-mesos-a-two-stage-flight-to-293-488-ft.175175/

Thank you!

 

[bad_idea]

Kip, it looks like you hit 242,000 feet and recovered the rocket at FAR, but I don't see any more details than that and your YouTube videos are all older. Now if 242K is what you do when life gets in the way, I can't wait to see what happens when it gets out of the way!

His NAR presentation is publicly available on YouTube:


If you are a Tripoli member, you can get the link to his more recent TRA presentation when you're logged into the TRA website under Media -> TRATech -> TRATech 2023.

 

[DirkTheDaring]

His NAR presentation is publicly available on YouTube:


If you are a Tripoli member, you can get the link to his more recent TRA presentation when you're logged into the TRA website under Media -> TRATech -> TRATech 2023.

Yes, that's his older one, I was enquiring about his latest, which @tsmith1315 very kindly supplied. But for anyone who hasn't seen it, that's a good link.

 

[Spacedog49Krell]

Fallon is a Naval Air Station, not an Air Force Base. If there was a Lt. Col. involved he or she would have had to be a Marine.

In any case, the military have no jurisdiction over the Smoke Creek airspace. What is the source of this story?

Indeed, FAR and the MTA do operate—with permission—in restricted airspace from 7000 feet agl to 60,000 feet agl. What does that have to do with these claims of an “Air Force” reaction to FAA authorized amateur launches?

Bill

Sorry, a Naval Commander. I did not serve in the military. Chuck and several other members of the RRI told me the story about the disruption of the "War Games". I was not there. When I started attending the Smoke Creek launches in 1978 there were no flight restrictions.

The Nuding flights were in 1953, five years before the FAA. The Air Force and CAA were the governing agencies, and I don't think the RRS/PRS were getting launch clearances in 1953.

 

[wclaybaugh2]

Sorry, a Naval Commander. I did not serve in the military. Chuck and several other members of the RRI told me the story about the disruption of the "War Games". I was not there. When I started attending the Smoke Creek launches in 1978 there were no flight restrictions.

The Nuding flights were in 1953, five years before the FAA. The Air Force and CAA were the governing agencies, and I don't think the RRS/PRS were getting launch clearances in 1953.

Ok, interesting history, I think; but let me be sure I have this straight:

Sometime after 1977 you were told a story by RRI members including Chuck Piper about one of the 100k flights around five or so years earlier attracting the attention of the military because it occurred during a military exercise. Is that correct?

I’m not following why Jim Nuding’s flight falls under the claim that the Air Force showed up a few hour’s later…did that happen? If so, was the issue that Jim had failed to coordinate with anyone regarding his flight?

Is there any documentation regarding Jim’s hybrids reaching 50k feet? The four inch diameter motors he showed me in the late ‘60’s appeared to be too small to offer that sort of performance.

Bill

 

[tfish]

Kip #3 240K+

Tony

 

[VernK]

Kip #3 240K+

Official Kate GPS altitude was actually 233,313 feet AGL. His flight was last Saturday on Nov 4. I will leave it at that for now. I assume Kip will post all the info as soon as he can.

 

[bad_idea]

Yes, that's his older one, I was enquiring about his latest

Kip #3 240K+

Official GPS altitude was actually 233,313 feet AGL. His flight was last Saturday on Nov 4. I will leave it at that for now. I assume Kip will post all the info as soon as he can.

Thanks. I hadn't heard about that flight yet.

 

[AllDigital]

@VernK , Kip updated flight #3 altitude from Saturday to the 233,313’ on Twitter today. Still an amazing flight.

 

[Spacedog49Krell]

Ok, interesting history, I think; but let me be sure I have this straight:

Sometime after 1977 you were told a story by RRI members including Chuck Piper about one of the 100k flights around five or so years earlier attracting the attention of the military because it occurred during a military exercise. Is that correct?

I’m not following why Jim Nuding’s flight falls under the claim that the Air Force showed up a few hour’s later…did that happen? If so, was the issue that Jim had failed to coordinate with anyone regarding his flight?

Is there any documentation regarding Jim’s hybrids reaching 50k feet? The four inch diameter motors he showed me in the late ‘60’s appeared to be too small to offer that sort of performance.

Bill

Yes, correct as far as I remember and was told. Both flights were tracked on radar. Jim's from the ground at MUROC and the RRI's from a plane in the flight formation. The MUROC officials suggested that Jim cease flying his hybrid rockets and that the RRS/PRS look at moving their launch site further away. In the case of the RRI, I heard that the officials threatened to have Chuck's BATF explosive license revoked. Both were beneficial for the long-term survival of amateur rocketry.

Speculation, one of Jim's fights might have interfered with a high altitude flight test. Possibly going higher than the test. RRI speculation is that the radar operator was a veteran with North Vietnam flight experience. The 2-stage tar baby flight had a similar flight signature to a SA-2 SAM.

As for Jim's altitude documentation, unless the MUROC officials told him altitude data, all I have are a few old PRS articles. Until about 4 years ago, I also held the belief that 50,000 ft was improbable for Jim's 4" hybrids. I now have seen flight data from several 4" solids with less total impulse that went to 38,000 ft.

Krell

 

[wclaybaugh2]

Yes, correct as far as I remember and was told. Both flights were tracked on radar. Jim's from the ground at MUROC and the RRI's from a plane in the flight formation. The MUROC officials suggested that Jim cease flying his hybrid rockets and that the RRS/PRS look at moving their launch site further away. In the case of the RRI, I heard that the officials threatened to have Chuck's BATF explosive license revoked. Both were beneficial for the long-term survival of amateur rocketry.

Speculation, one of Jim's fights might have interfered with a high altitude flight test. Possibly going higher than the test. RRI speculation is that the radar operator was a veteran with North Vietnam flight experience. The 2-stage tar baby flight had a similar flight signature to a SA-2 SAM.

As for Jim's altitude documentation, unless the MUROC officials told him altitude data, all I have are a few old PRS articles. Until about 4 years ago, I also held the belief that 50,000 ft was improbable for Jim's 4" hybrids. I now have seen flight data from several 4" solids with less total impulse that went to 38,000 ft.

Krell

I’m not a fan of speculation and prefer to simply admit that I don’t know.

I do, however, know that the RRI had FAA waivers to 133k feet for those flights (FAA Western Regional cited the 133k feet waivers in their waiver for the RRS ‘96 Dart flight as representing the highest altitude to which they had any basis for claiming legal authority). That in turn means there was a NOTAM issued for those flights and implies that the Navy’s system failed to notify senior leadership that that flight would be using that airspace on that day.

There is—obviously—no legal basis for a Navy or Marine Corps Officer threatening to pull a BATF license. Still, having lived w/i that system I am aware of the power of a private conversation between senior bureaucrats for creating mischief….

I doubt Nuding had radar data from Muroc: when my rockets started poking above the Edwards radar horizon in the 1990’s I asked about getting that data and was told it was not available because it would reveal capabilities. I assumed then that meant the data was classified and I had no need to know. I imagine the same would have applied in the early ‘50’s…possibly more so.

What total impulse do you think Nuding’s hybrids had? The vehicles he showed me had short rubber grains w/ a single central core. Single core Lox / hydrocarbon hybrids need very long grains to achieve an overall balanced O/F ratio; Nuding’s grains had to have been extremely rich compared to the desired 2.4 or so O/F ratio and accordingly do not seem to me likely to have produced anything like the total impulse of a modern solid.

Bill

 

[JPL]

Bill, tell the truth!

 

[wclaybaugh2]

Bill, tell the truth!

Sorry, I'm not following this?

Bill

 

[High Desert Rocketry]

To got space at Balls, you're getting your own COA and bringing your own pad.
TRA helps, but compared to the effort it's pretty minor. Plus you pay to launch at Balls.
Sure you can rent launch facilities too - why not - just pay for it within the team.

What I'm talking about who built the vehicle and the source of all the parts and funding.

Cost to launch to space at FAR is $10 on 'FAR' 1st and 3rd Saturdays of the month.
That includes the launch pads (20, 50, or 60' available) machine shop use, flush toilets, etc.