Quantcast

Smallest rocket

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

tmazanec1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
83
Reaction score
2
What's the smallest sized rocket you can launch with a MicroMaxx?
 

Incongruent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
5
Max casing with paper cone glued on tip, fins and lug glued on sides.
 

KennB

I-95 Envoy
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
187
Location
Amesbury, MA
The Big Honkin' Rocket by Fliskits is probably the smallest commercially available rocket to use the MMX motors. They're sold with materials to make three rockets in each bag as you're likely to lose one of them "behind a blade of grass".
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,765
Reaction score
13
I managed to lose a BiC pen rocket and that's not all that small for MMX. Despite a half dozen sets of eyes nobody saw where it went. A translucent tube didn't help.
 

tmacklin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
7
How about a minimum diameter rocket in a 0.281" (T2.5) tube?

IMG_1409.jpg
 

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
42
Location
Washington DC
One of the Smallest Micro Maxx models in my fleet are called "the Nano-Dot which was inspired by Jim Flis model called the Micro-Dot that flys on a 13mm motor where the Nano-Dot #345- flying on a MMX-II.

The "Rocket" consists of 2- 3/32" wide T2+ rings. a custom turned styrofoam nosecone and 3- folded 110lb Cardstock fins. Overall length is 1.609", .9375 Fin Span, empty weight .8g
LOWt- 1.9g. I've flown 9 of the orignial 12 Nano-Dots I mass built in 2008. All nine flown at well attended Narhams Club launches with as many as 30 sets of eyes watching each launch. I have yet to recover a single one LOL! when the button is pressed this little bugger teleports completely out of sight. Not one person on the field even saw the smoke trail...a very faint pop at ejection but No-one saw a thing. It is a neat little model. If any of you want to build a Nano-Dot the 1-Page Plan is attached below.

I also have a number of other Micro small rockets. #308 Teeny Weeny Crayon @ 2.3125" long. #311- MM No See-em a tiny 4 fin 2.0" long. #312 MM 3x downscale ThumbTack Odd-Roc which is actually the smallest .281" x .5625" long with a disc diameter of 1.1875". The there is #334- 1-1/2" long by 1-1/2" Diameter Micro Spool Daz. All the other small micro model have been flown on MMX-II motors many times and recovered. The Nano-dot is the only one the simply disapears.
Hope one or some of these answer the original question;)

MM 312p1e-sm_MM 3X ThumbTack Odd-roc 4pic pg 96dpi_08-14-05.jpg


MM 334a2-sm_1.5in dia micro Spool Daz OddRoc_08-31-07.JPG


MM 345b-sm_Nano-Dot Plan_06-18-08.jpg
 
Last edited:

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
42
Location
Washington DC
Max casing with paper cone glued on tip, fins and lug glued on sides.
Incongruent: it is a violation of our model rocket safety code to Glue anything to any model rocket motor. it is considered altering the intended use of the manufacturer.
there are any number of ways to work around actually glueing or otherwise attaching things to our motors.
Safety First Always.
 

timbucktoo

Well-Known Member
Staff member
TRF Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
7,748
Reaction score
1,132
Location
Cocoa Beach
Incongruent: it is a violation of our model rocket safety code to Glue anything to any model rocket motor. it is considered altering the intended use of the manufacturer.
there are any number of ways to work around actually glueing or otherwise attaching things to our motors.
Safety First Always.
Not sure about that. Think they call it EX. There's a post here somewhere where someone did exactly that. It was quite impressive.
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,765
Reaction score
13
Incongruent: it is a violation of our model rocket safety code to Glue anything to any model rocket motor. it is considered altering the intended use of the manufacturer.
there are any number of ways to work around actually glueing or otherwise attaching things to our motors.
Safety First Always.
I'm not sure that is true always. NAR ruled that thrust rings can be bonded on.
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,765
Reaction score
13
Not sure about that. Think they call it EX. There's a post here somewhere where someone did exactly that. It was quite impressive.
It's not EX. Yes it has been done. NAR is pickier than TRA. People have also made rear closures that hold the fins. Now that is research, man.
 

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
42
Location
Washington DC
I'm not sure that is true always. NAR ruled that thrust rings can be bonded on.
Dick: I realize you fly with MDRA which is a much looser flying group the the NAR.
That Said: We're not talking about a thrust ring.. The young man was talking about glueing on the Nosecone and fins directly to the motor casing... That Sir is a NO NO direct violation of our Safety code. While it may be an NAR Safety Code we are talking about LPR actually Micro BP motor and as stated in the earlier post it is a violation of that safety code to attach or add ANYTHING to a Model Rocket motor casing.
IT is not safe, it is not smart and it also makes the rocket a Throw-Away one time rocket which is another safety code violation. As our Rockets are intended to be flown, Recovered and flown again.
Lets not confuse people with the somewhat Cowboy additudes of the HPR -Tripoli crowd.
This has Nothing to do with EX which is yet another Fringe faction of our hobby which is Much more regluated than we are and I for one would like to keep it that way.
Hopping off my broken soap box.
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,765
Reaction score
13
Dick: I realize you fly with MDRA which is a much looser flying group the the NAR.
That Said: We're not talking about a thrust ring.. The young man was talking about glueing on the Nosecone and fins directly to the motor casing... That Sir is a NO NO direct violation of our Safety code. While it may be an NAR Safety Code we are talking about LPR actually Micro BP motor and as stated in the earlier post it is a violation of that safety code to attach or add ANYTHING to a Model Rocket motor casing.
IT is not safe, it is not smart and it also makes the rocket a Throw-Away one time rocket which is another safety code violation. As our Rockets are intended to be flown, Recovered and flown again.
Lets not confuse people with the somewhat Cowboy additudes of the HPR -Tripoli crowd.
This has Nothing to do with EX which is yet another Fringe faction of our hobby which is Much more regluated than we are and I for one would like to keep it that way.
Hopping off my broken soap box.
Well, I confused two things. You can glue on a thrust ring. What is really a no-no is the no recovery bit, which eluded me the first time. I won't pose any hypotheticals to disturb any soap box :D

Oh yeah, fin units that replace a reloadable's rear closure is EX (actually 'research' now) by TRA rules, and that safety code would apply. But that's not here or there as since MMX is low power.
 

Incongruent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
5
Incongruent: it is a violation of our model rocket safety code to Glue anything to any model rocket motor. it is considered altering the intended use of the manufacturer.
there are any number of ways to work around actually glueing or otherwise attaching things to our motors.
Safety First Always.
Unless it's an FSI Mach Buster.
 

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
42
Location
Washington DC
Unless it's an FSI Mach Buster.
Tony: There are NO exceptions to the model rocket safety code Period. Further there is absolutely no reason to do such an unsafe act.
As mentioned earlier there are many ways to accomplish the same thing without violating the code. One simply has to think outside the box but stay within the rules of our Safety Code. This Code is why we are able to fly model rockets without a lot of government regulations and restrictions. It as been in existance since the very begining of the hobby and why we can still say we are the #1 safest outdoor sport or hobby on the planet. Lets keep it that way.

Let me sight an example from the mid 1970's:
Many of the then active BTC's in NAR competition wanted to get a wavier on the ruling about attaching or altering any model rocket motor. Many (Myself included) wanted to drill a 1/16" or smaller hole about 1/8" below the forward end of the empty cardboard motor casing to allow the inserting of a music wire motor retention wire extending through the model body & motor casing making a light weight positive motor retention method.
This requrest was soundly denied by the NAR safety committee, sighting the NO attachment or Alteration of any model rocket motor beyond the manufacturers initial intended use. We argued that these two small holes in the empty casing section of the motor would in no way alter the performance or "Intended use" of the motor by the manufacture. This was also rejected as both motor manufactures at the time Estes and Centuri would not sign off the the suggestion.
While those small holes seemed to everyone involved to NOT alter the motor in any real way, The powers that be stressed: If the motor manufacturer's wanted a hole drill or punched in any part of their motor casings they would have to be done in the manufacturing process not as an after thougth by the hobbiest.
Our best thoughts & theories will never cover the unintended consequences as completely or accurately as the manufactueres risk assessments.
 
Last edited:

Incongruent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
5
Tony: There are NO exceptions to the model rocket safety code Period. Further there is absolutely no reason to do such an unsafe act.
As mentioned earlier there are many ways to accomplish the same thing without violating the code. One simply has to think outside the box but stay within the rules of our Safety Code. This Code is why we are able to fly model rockets without a lot of government regulations and restrictions. It as been in existance since the very begining of the hobby and why we can still say we are the #1 safest outdoor sport or hobby on the planet. Lets keep it that way.

Let me sight an example from the mid 1970's:
Many of the then active BTC's in NAR competition wanted to get a wavier on the ruling about attaching or altering any model rocket motor. Many (Myself included) wanted to drill a 1/16" or smaller hole about 1/8" below the forward end of the empty cardboard motor casing to allow the inserting of a music wire motor retention wire extending through the model body & motor casing making a light weight positive motor retention method.
This requrest was soundly denied by the NAR safety committee, sighting the NO attachment or Alteration of any model rocket motor beyond the manufacturers initial intended use. We argued that these two small holes in the empty casing section of the motor would in no way alter the performance or "Intended use" of the motor by the manufacture. This was also rejected as both motor manufactures at the time Estes and Centuri would not sign off the the suggestion.
While those small holes seemed to everyone involved to NOT alter the motor in any real way, The powers that be stressed: If the motor manufacturer's wanted a hole drill or punched in any part of their motor casings they would have to be done in the manufacturing process not as an after thougth by the hobbiest.
Our best thoughts & theories will never cover the unintended consequences as completely or accurately as the manufactueres risk assessments.
My point was that FSI intended the motor to have fins attached to it.

My beginning post was referring to the smallest possible rocket using the MMX engines, not the necessarily smallest legal one. The reduction in diameter contributed to it being the smallest. I was under the impression that the OP was asking a theoretical question rather than a practical one, but I could very likely be wrong.
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,765
Reaction score
13
Tony: There are NO exceptions to the model rocket safety code Period. Further there is absolutely no reason to do such an unsafe act.
As mentioned earlier there are many ways to accomplish the same thing without violating the code. One simply has to think outside the box but stay within the rules of our Safety Code. This Code is why we are able to fly model rockets without a lot of government regulations and restrictions. It as been in existance since the very begining of the hobby and why we can still say we are the #1 safest outdoor sport or hobby on the planet. Lets keep it that way.

Let me sight an example from the mid 1970's:
Many of the then active BTC's in NAR competition wanted to get a wavier on the ruling about attaching or altering any model rocket motor. Many (Myself included) wanted to drill a 1/16" or smaller hole about 1/8" below the forward end of the empty cardboard motor casing to allow the inserting of a music wire motor retention wire extending through the model body & motor casing making a light weight positive motor retention method.
This requrest was soundly denied by the NAR safety committee, sighting the NO attachment or Alteration of any model rocket motor beyond the manufacturers initial intended use. We argued that these two small holes in the empty casing section of the motor would in no way alter the performance or "Intended use" of the motor by the manufacture. This was also rejected as both motor manufactures at the time Estes and Centuri would not sign off the the suggestion.
While those small holes seemed to everyone involved to NOT alter the motor in any real way, The powers that be stressed: If the motor manufacturer's wanted a hole drill or punched in any part of their motor casings they would have to be done in the manufacturing process not as an after thougth by the hobbiest.
Our best thoughts & theories will never cover the unintended consequences as completely or accurately as the manufactueres risk assessments.
Has NAR rescinded their ruling on glued on thrust rings?
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,765
Reaction score
13
My point was that FSI intended the motor to have fins attached to it.

My beginning post was referring to the smallest possible rocket using the MMX engines, not the necessarily smallest legal one. The reduction in diameter contributed to it being the smallest. I was under the impression that the OP was asking a theoretical question rather than a practical one, but I could very likely be wrong.
I was taking it as theoretical too.
 

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
42
Location
Washington DC
I was taking it as theoretical too.
Dick:
Since we have used "Friction Fitted" motors from the very beginning of the hobby. Which entails wrapping masking tape around the motor casting. The next logical step was creating an aft Thrust ring using built up wraps of masking tape to help retain the motor(s). With all that History, I'm sure the Safety committee looked at allowing the bonding of a extra section of body tube or whatever as an "Aft Thrust Ring" as being equal in not altering the intended use of the motor by the manufacturer to the tape Friction Fit and/or tape wrapped aft ring. Thus approved the use of thurst rings being glue or bonded to the aft end of our motors.
This is the ONLY "alteration of any kind allowed to a model rocket motor I've ever heard of being approved by the NAR Safety committee.
 

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
42
Location
Washington DC
My point was that FSI intended the motor to have fins attached to it.

My beginning post was referring to the smallest possible rocket using the MMX engines, not the necessarily smallest legal one. The reduction in diameter contributed to it being the smallest. I was under the impression that the OP was asking a theoretical question rather than a practical one, but I could very likely be wrong.
I believe the OP ask " what is the smallest rocket that could be launched on a Micro Maxx? NOTHING theoretical at all in that question.
Further, since this is an open forum Anything mentioned even as theoretical (which we do not see in the question) has the same weight as answering the question with what can actually be built and flown. I do believe your impression was in fact in error.
On any open forum we as responsible Rocketeer's must think before we type what some unknowing individual reads as "Oh, I guess it's OK to build cause they said so in the forum"
Just like doing things in the heat of the moment, Typing useless theoretical stuff on an open forum is just asking for someone to get the wrong idea that could turn out very badly for both the individual and the Hobby. Always Safety First....Think before you Act or Type.
 
Last edited:

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,765
Reaction score
13
Dick:
Since we have used "Friction Fitted" motors from the very beginning of the hobby. Which entails wrapping masking tape around the motor casting. The next logical step was creating an aft Thrust ring using built up wraps of masking tape to help retain the motor(s). With all that History, I'm sure the Safety committee looked at allowing the bonding of a extra section of body tube or whatever as an "Aft Thrust Ring" as being equal in not altering the intended use of the motor by the manufacturer to the tape Friction Fit and/or tape wrapped aft ring. Thus approved the use of thurst rings being glue or bonded to the aft end of our motors.
This is the ONLY "alteration of any kind allowed to a model rocket motor I've ever heard of being approved by the NAR Safety committee.
OK, just checking. I did glue-on rings on G80-FWL motors until the TRFer who machined my microHybrid also made me a bunch of clamp-on rings. I now wouldn't bother as even skinny tape rings work so well.
 

Pat_B

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
923
Reaction score
0
You have to remember it's dangerous to glue your nose cone onto a MM motor. But it is very possible to launch your HP rocket with a 16lb bowling ball for a nose cone and have it comply with the safety codes. Gosh, I hope the person who gets hit by the MM motor falling out of the air doesn't get smashed into the ground.
 

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
42
Location
Washington DC
You have to remember it's dangerous to glue your nose cone onto a MM motor. But it is very possible to launch your HP rocket with a 16lb bowling ball for a nose cone and have it comply with the safety codes. Gosh, I hope the person who gets hit by the MM motor falling out of the air doesn't get smashed into the ground.
Pat:
As usual your comments have little to no merit or weight with regard to this thread. We are ONLY concerned with the rules within the Model Rocket Safety Code under which Micro & LPR BP models are flown.
What Assinine things HPR folks do under their somewhat looser Tripoli rules are their concern.
Let's at least stick to the Proper Sub-Forum values, thank you.
 

Incongruent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
5
The NAR safety code is vague in certain spots, for instance tampering with a motor or using them for any purpose except those recommended by the manufacturer, what exactly does tampering mean? If you use a nose cone to widen the top of a D12-0 booster motor to CHAD stage an 18mm motor, is that tampering? If you mark or scratch the paper when you insert it into a rocket with an engine hook, did you tamper with it? And using it for a purpose other than reccomended by the manufacturer, Estes "reccomends" that you use their motors in their kits and specifically theirs so that they can make more money. Same thing in with their kits, but when you used a quest motor in an Estes kit or an Estes motor in a quest kit, did you violate the NAR safety code?
 

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
42
Location
Washington DC
The NAR safety code is vague in certain spots, for instance tampering with a motor or using them for any purpose except those recommended by the manufacturer, what exactly does tampering mean? If you use a nose cone to widen the top of a D12-0 booster motor to CHAD stage an 18mm motor, is that tampering? If you mark or scratch the paper when you insert it into a rocket with an engine hook, did you tamper with it? And using it for a purpose other than reccomended by the manufacturer, Estes "reccomends" that you use their motors in their kits and specifically theirs so that they can make more money. Same thing in with their kits, but when you used a quest motor in an Estes kit or an Estes motor in a quest kit, did you violate the NAR safety code?
None of the things above are voilations for the Model Rocket Safety Code with the possible exception of using a Nose cone to Widen the top of a D12-0 motor.
Just for your information 18mm BP motors fit exactly into the forward end of any 24mm motor. NO CONE NEEDED for chad staging. Same goes for 13mm motor s into 18mm motors.
Once you get a little more experience under your belt you'll know somewhat better the things that can and can not be done with our pre-manufactured motors from any manufacturer. A scratch from a motor hook isn't a good thing but if the motor is otherwise undamaged it shouldn't alter the operation of the motor.
Applying a 1/4sheet of FP Wadding to the forward end of booster or delayed motors in clustered applications held in place with a small piece of 1/2" masking tape is not specifically instructed by either Estes or Quest but is extremely important to prevent "Back Burning" if one of more motors fails to ignite. It is another example of the extension of Masking tape being allowed without violation.
And so you more completely understand: NO code or rules can completely cover every instence. Some Experience and more Important Common sense must be used. The most important to thing to remember while on the Flying field. If in doubt Don't do it. Fly Safety First Always.

How about we get off this distraction and back to the original question of this thread. Smallest MMX Rocket.
Remember Think before you Type.
 
Last edited:
Top