Lakeroadster's Artemis SLS GDS

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

lakeroadster

When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
8,687
Reaction score
10,734
Location
Central Colorado
A shortened version of the Artemis SLS.
  • Stability via GDS and small fins to ensure rotation during the coast phase.
  • Rear eject spool with 24 mm triple motor cluster in the main body.
  • Rear eject spools with 24mm motors recovered via streamers in the SRB's

2022-11-20 Artemis Short Open Rocket Simulation.jpg 2022-11-20 Artemis Short Open Rocket Simulation Side View.jpg2022-11-20 Artemis Short Open Rocket Photo Studio.jpg
 
Last edited:
SLS...Surely Lacking Sanity. Craziness! Rear ejection through a GDS ring fin? No lexan fins for traditional and assured safety?

With such a high level of model rocket porn this design will have to face an inquisition of old dudes to determine if it predominantly appeals to the prurient interests of oddrocketry. At least a little censorship black box to cover that hind end so as not to unduly influence any viewing neophyte towards the dark arts! Will the board of inquiry issue an old school XXX rating on this one? Way too much exposed rear eject and uncouth stabilization for my orthodox 3-4FNC sensitivity. :)
 
Very cool! A few questions:
* Since we're leaning hard into the cluster madness here, any chance of making the core 4x24mm motors so it's "scale"? 4x blue motors in the middle and white thunder/lightning in the outboards would be pretty cool.
* Will the side boosters drop off in flight?
 
Very cool! A few questions:
* Since we're leaning hard into the cluster madness here, any chance of making the core 4x24mm motors so it's "scale"? 4x blue motors in the middle and white thunder/lightning in the outboards would be pretty cool.
Thanks for wading into the asylum.

A 24mm 4-motor cluster wouldn't fit into BT-70 body tube. But I could slice and dice the BT-70 and make it work if I changed it to a conventional front recovery motor deployment for the cluster, and stick with the SRB rear eject. That might be a better recovery method in any event, to protect the delicate LAS motor mounted atop the capsule.

I'm kind of digging the 24mm motor bulges through the main body tube.

A 18mm 4-motor cluster and 24mm SRB's would also be cool... and even more "scale".


* Will the side boosters drop off in flight?

I wasn't planning to do that. Because it's a cluster I'm thinking making the SRB stay on in the event its SRB motor doesn't light, might be problematic.

2022-11-21 Artemis Short - 6 Motor -  Open Rocket Simulation.jpg2022-11-21 Artemis Short - (4) 18mm - (2) 24mm -  Open Rocket Simulation.jpgz2n6vnresj531.jpg
 
Last edited:
The thrust curves for using D12's and C6's in combination looks promising, too.

Using D12-3's, the D motors will rear eject with their streamers and about 2 seconds later the C6-5 will deploy the recovery chute.

Should be a fun flight.

C6 and D12 Thrust Curves.jpg
 
Last edited:
The thrust curves for using D12's and C6's in combination looks promising, too.

Using D12-3's, the D motors will rear eject with their streamers and about 2 seconds later the C6-5 will deploy the recovery chute.

Should be a fun flight.

View attachment 547108
POOR BOY DUAL DEPLOY!
 
I can't see it good, but is the CP 5 inches in front of the CG?

Yep. No fins mean wonky stability numbers for the simulation.

GDS: The force of the thrust through the lower tubes pulls air from outside the rocket through the annular cavity between the tubes and adds stability. But when the motor stops that goes away, so the canted fins will induce roll stability.
The 2 questions are :​
A) How much stability will be generated, and,​
B) Will the rocket roll at a high enough rate to be stable during the coast phase. Those SRB's are pretty big and create considerable drag in respect to the rocket rolling about its longitudinal axis.​
 
What are the probabilities of the recovery streamers/chute getting caught in the ring fins?

Certainly possible.​
Recovery devices are "hot dog bun" wrapped around their respective spool. What If: Attach a Kevlar chord inside the body tube and the other end of the chord is loose. Spiral wrap that loose end around the bun, such that once the spool exits the tube, the Kevlar unwinds, and the chute / streamer deploys?​

Nose weight?

The entire upper end of the rocket is custom turned from spruce lumber, including the conical reducer (Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter), which is held to the core stage via screws. That can be removed and additional weight added.​

Are the booster motors glued to the streamer spool?

Yes. Streamers attach to the SRB motors.​
May have to up the size of the SRB tubes from BT-50 to T-104 to allow some space for that attachment method.​
 
On the drawing the tubes on the spools look very narrow to duct ejection gasses to the top chamber, especially on the center cluster. Wouldn't traditional forward ejection be easier? This is a level 10 mindsim that overloads my old dude 256k RAM.

"We do these things not because they are easy, we do them because they are hard. " Rocket science is hard.
 
Last edited:
Rear ejection successful, rocket coming down...is the escape tower strong enough not to break on landing? The bane of the scale flyer.

Will the GDS provide a good deal of stability? I don't think so. Will the canted fins spin the rocket fast enough for stability? I don't think so...

DADDY, DON'T BE SUCH A DEBBIE DOWNER! WAN, WAN WANT, WA!
 
Rear ejection successful, rocket coming down...is the escape tower strong enough not to break on landing? The bane of the scale flyer.

Will the GDS provide a good deal of stability? I don't think so. Will the canted fins spin the rocket fast enough for stability? I don't think so...

DADDY, DON'T BE SUCH A DEBBIE DOWNER! WAN, WAN WANT, WA!
SOMEbody has a case of the Mondays! I think the Top Men are getting to you. ;)

Though I agree that the canted fins won't provide enough roll for stabilization once the main motors burn out. At least not with the boosters still on there. It may have enough inherent stability to fly though.
 
SOMEbody has a case of the Mondays! I think the Top Men are getting to you. ;)

Though I agree that the canted fins won't provide enough roll for stabilization once the main motors burn out. At least not with the boosters still on there. It may have enough inherent stability to fly though.
Yes Mr. RSO, power and nose weight solve 90% of my rocket's problems. So GDS and spin stabilization don't have much to cover and will guarantee a safe flight! Please put me on the far far away pad with the big boys!

Singing; Monday morning with Momma Cass.
 
With a four motor cluster that main tube GDS ring is going to get mighty toasty. Que Johny Cash...a ring of fire. "I went down, down, down, and the flames went higher. And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire." Good thing the Top Men love Jonny Cash blaring out of the pickup cab on the old 8 track!
 
Rear ejection successful, rocket coming down...is the escape tower strong enough not to break on landing? The bane of the scale flyer.
On the good side, if the tower doesn’t break, and there is no harness to hold the nose horizontal and it comes down nose first in soft ground, it will definitely “stick” the landing.
 
On the good side, if the tower doesn’t break, and there is no harness to hold the nose horizontal and it comes down nose first in soft ground, it will definitely “stick” the landing.
Bullet proof with a machined, steel cored escape tower. A rear eject lawn dart guaranteed to please!

No Mr. RSO, you are not imagining things. That escape tower is made out of a ten penny nail! :)

Fortunately with all the Top Men flying aluminum tipped, quick burn, high powered screamers there will be no problem.
 
Last edited:
Your experience may differ, but i find rolled streamers unless descending from high altitude tend to incompletely unfurl, compared to folded steamers which are only wrapped when they can’t fold anymore. Your problem here is you do not want these to unfurl too early , or they may get wrapped on the ring fins.

Outside of high risk wildfire conditions (may be a rare condition in your area, I suspect commonly pretty dry there) i think simple motor eject with no streamers is perfectly legit. Been doing it with 18-24 mm for over a decade without a single issue.

Check with local field rules (if any) first, and stick to black powder motors which are completely biodegradable. I pick up the casings I can find, but I don’t sweat ones I can’t. Composites may be different, as they won’t degrade,at least not for months or possibly years.

Otoh, if you want maximin flexibility, nothing wrong with adding a streamer except complexity and space. They DO look cool coming down (nice feature of my HeliBomber), but also force you to track multiple descending objects,
 
With a four motor cluster that main tube GDS ring is going to get mighty toasty. Que Johny Cash...a ring of fire. "I went down, down, down, and the flames went higher. And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire." Good thing the Top Men love Jonny Cash blaring out of the pickup cab on the old 8 track!

That's a great tune. Love me some "Cash". 💰🎸:haironfire:

The air being sucked into the space from outside, one would think, would tend to help keep the flames away. :dontknow: And to that point, on my "Thunk" rocket (see photo below) there was nothing but suet inside the C-55 and that was easily removed.

Look at the exhaust thrust pattern on a BP motor in the video below... it is pretty choked until it's out 3 or 4 inches.

In any event, it's all good. Worst case scenario we make smores, then I can replace the ring.



2022-07-26 018 Thunk.JPG
 
Your experience may differ, but i find rolled streamers unless descending from high altitude tend to incompletely unfurl, compared to folded steamers which are only wrapped when they can’t fold anymore. Your problem here is you do not want these to unfurl too early , or they may get wrapped on the ring fins.

Outside of high risk wildfire conditions (may be a rare condition in your area, I suspect commonly pretty dry there) i think simple motor eject with no streamers is perfectly legit. Been doing it with 18-24 mm for over a decade without a single issue.

Check with local field rules (if any) first, and stick to black powder motors which are completely biodegradable. I pick up the casings I can find, but I don’t sweat ones I can’t. Composites may be different, as they won’t degrade,at least not for months or possibly years.

Otoh, if you want maximin flexibility, nothing wrong with adding a streamer except complexity and space. They DO look cool coming down (nice feature of my HeliBomber), but also force you to track multiple descending objects,

Maybe just a 12" long crepe paper streamer then for the SRB's. That way if the streamer does get into the rings, the crepe paper will just rip in-two.

The main recovery chute though would have the spiral wound Kevlar wrapped chute.

Thanks for all the comments @BABAR , @boatgeek @hobie1dog and @Daddyisabar . They really help me to think through the flight.

The rocket should be at about 400 feet when the D motors stop burning. So, for the first flight a full complement of 3 second delays might be prudent. That way if the rocket goes unstable without thrust, that give the laundry the shortest possible time to deploy before ground hit.

I could also launch the rocket without the SRB's 1st... just to see if it is stable after thrust in that configuration.
 
I could also launch the rocket without the SRB's 1st... just to see if it is stable after thrust in that configuration.
At the risk of sounding like @Daddyisabar, no point in half measures. Go full stack from day 1! If it tumbles, take off the boosters and try again. With a 3-second delay and rear eject, you're probably fine.
 
At the risk of sounding like @Daddyisabar, no point in half measures. Go full stack from day 1! If it tumbles, take off the boosters and try again. With a 3-second delay and rear eject, you're probably fine.
Load fer bear! Underpowered oddrocs are the worst. Need some speed off the rod or rail engage that sweet GDS magic. Trust in thrust to get lovely inertia going up and kicking in that yummy base drag. Yes Mr. RSO, IT IS JUST AN IGNITION ISSUE!
 
Using D12-3's, the D motors will rear eject with their streamers and about 2 seconds later the C6-5 will deploy the recovery chute.
Did you mean to write "about 2 seconds before"? 'Cause it looks like it would be about two seconds before.

D12-3: 1.7 s burn + 3 s delay = 4.7 s from ignition to deployment.
C6-5: 1.9 s burn + 5 a delay = 6.9 s from ignition to deployment.
 
Did you mean to write "about 2 seconds before"? 'Cause it looks like it would be about two seconds before.

D12-3: 1.7 s burn + 3 s delay = 4.7 s from ignition to deployment.
C6-5: 1.9 s burn + 5 a delay = 6.9 s from ignition to deployment.
:popcorn:
 
4 C6 plus 2 D12 == 1 "F" -- that's a lot of ooomph. With much more initial thrust than most actual F motors can put out.
Fortunately, mitigated by the weight of all those motors. Possibly a slow dramatic liftoff from the pad.
 
4 C6 plus 2 D12 == 1 "F" -- that's a lot of ooomph. With much more initial thrust than most actual F motors can put out.
Fortunately, mitigated by the weight of all those motors. Possibly a slow dramatic liftoff from the pad.
Clears the launch rod at 41 mph.. per Open Rocket.
 
Back
Top