Its been a busy Month !
While I knew 3D printing rockets was not new, The arguments against why it will never work when compared to cardboard had me challenging my design and 3D printing skills and while I have never said it is a replacement or somehow better then cardboard tubes. I am here to say that it can be considered a comparable alternative, design and from a cost perspective.
Here is Why, lets start with cost.
So while I am on this mission to design all 3D printed rockets, iv been printing 40mm diameter body tubes so that would be BT60 1.64" OD. And iv finally been able to get the weight done below that of BT60 tube for a linear foot. To prove this I ordered two lengths of BT60 tubes from my local online store which is 2 hours away(GTA).
So shipping is my only option. Due to the shape of the tubes 18" lengths I would need x2 for a 30+ inch rocket. They cost me $CA4.10 per tube with tax. That's $8.20 for both. Plus shipping of $18 because of their shape.
That's $26.20 two get a single rocket worth of tube here. A roll of LW-PLA cost me CA $34 on Amazon(prime) and I can print 260" inches of linear tube from a single roll of filament.
I could drive to local hobby shop spend the fuel and buy bulk to get the cost down but I could also just get the roll of filament delivered to my door..
Food for thought
Now for the rocket part.
Body tubes, I wanted to take a comparable analog between the standard tubes and printed tubes so I selected a 200mm x 40D tube size and used some I had around plus open rocket library to compare weights and im happy to say with a bi directional integrated connector already. it is possible to match carboard tubes in weight, Standard BT60 is around 12g for the same length.
if you where wondering about the connector, this in its own when iteration after iteration until finally ended up with current design. The importance behind the connector was crutial as it would be used on all sections of the body to assist in most repairable and flexibly rocket. Glue could be used but sticking to this design has other benefits which we will touch on in summary. The original plan was 2mm brass heated inserts but finally found that using the correct type of screw ( made for plastic) allowed me to avoid the brass inserts all together. This is how it ended up looking. Here is the screws and connectors
Next was the motor mount, removable fins was important to allow for maximum flexibility, repair and experimentation. At this stage the plan is to use 29mm motors from D to F but G should be possible if PLA version is built. here is versions of this attempt.
Then it was onto the fins. and here is where im still not 100% sure but happy enough with the results for now. The advantage of removable is I can play with this later.
Then it was the nose cone. This one was a bit more surprising, as changing the design didn't effect the result that much.
And here was a test stackup of all the raw parts that make up a single conventional rocket.
SUMMARY
What does all this mean ? Well if the numbers are stacked up a 1000x40mm(39'x1.57") Rocket all 3D printed comes in at 128g (4.5oz) according to me that's well within the cardboard equivalent range for the motors of choice. happy to hear counter arguments ?
So why, what's the benefits of doing this. Well over and above the economical reasons mentioned earlier I gain the added advantage of building a modular rocket that can be rapidly adapted, repair and scaled. this plus the fact that I can travel with the entire rocket in a A4 sized suitcase across borders and can assemble the system on launch day is just some of the advantages.
When it comes down to design aspect, the intent for this rocket is electronically fired dual deploy rocket which is not easy todo with D to F motors ( Specially with Air brakes if you watched my first AspireONE video. So designing each body section in modular fashion allows me to alter Avionics bays, landing legs, motor sizes, length, nose cones, even swop or send design pieces to someone with the same connector system.
The final goal for wet weight with PLA is around 10oz and with LW-PLA is around 7.9 to 8.5oz for the entire system. With a motor mount change and adding the 2mm carbon fiber spares to the pre allocated spine holes, This same platform should be able to be scaled to MRP motors.
Next steps is going to be combining PLA/ASA/ABS frames with LW-PLA skin to best of both worlds.
This was video of one of the first PLA versions with 100mm body sections but would be more suited to F to G sized motors due to weight
STEM Test Fitment
While I knew 3D printing rockets was not new, The arguments against why it will never work when compared to cardboard had me challenging my design and 3D printing skills and while I have never said it is a replacement or somehow better then cardboard tubes. I am here to say that it can be considered a comparable alternative, design and from a cost perspective.
Here is Why, lets start with cost.
So while I am on this mission to design all 3D printed rockets, iv been printing 40mm diameter body tubes so that would be BT60 1.64" OD. And iv finally been able to get the weight done below that of BT60 tube for a linear foot. To prove this I ordered two lengths of BT60 tubes from my local online store which is 2 hours away(GTA).
So shipping is my only option. Due to the shape of the tubes 18" lengths I would need x2 for a 30+ inch rocket. They cost me $CA4.10 per tube with tax. That's $8.20 for both. Plus shipping of $18 because of their shape.
That's $26.20 two get a single rocket worth of tube here. A roll of LW-PLA cost me CA $34 on Amazon(prime) and I can print 260" inches of linear tube from a single roll of filament.
I could drive to local hobby shop spend the fuel and buy bulk to get the cost down but I could also just get the roll of filament delivered to my door..
Food for thought
Now for the rocket part.
Body tubes, I wanted to take a comparable analog between the standard tubes and printed tubes so I selected a 200mm x 40D tube size and used some I had around plus open rocket library to compare weights and im happy to say with a bi directional integrated connector already. it is possible to match carboard tubes in weight, Standard BT60 is around 12g for the same length.
if you where wondering about the connector, this in its own when iteration after iteration until finally ended up with current design. The importance behind the connector was crutial as it would be used on all sections of the body to assist in most repairable and flexibly rocket. Glue could be used but sticking to this design has other benefits which we will touch on in summary. The original plan was 2mm brass heated inserts but finally found that using the correct type of screw ( made for plastic) allowed me to avoid the brass inserts all together. This is how it ended up looking. Here is the screws and connectors
Next was the motor mount, removable fins was important to allow for maximum flexibility, repair and experimentation. At this stage the plan is to use 29mm motors from D to F but G should be possible if PLA version is built. here is versions of this attempt.
Then it was onto the fins. and here is where im still not 100% sure but happy enough with the results for now. The advantage of removable is I can play with this later.
Then it was the nose cone. This one was a bit more surprising, as changing the design didn't effect the result that much.
And here was a test stackup of all the raw parts that make up a single conventional rocket.
SUMMARY
What does all this mean ? Well if the numbers are stacked up a 1000x40mm(39'x1.57") Rocket all 3D printed comes in at 128g (4.5oz) according to me that's well within the cardboard equivalent range for the motors of choice. happy to hear counter arguments ?
So why, what's the benefits of doing this. Well over and above the economical reasons mentioned earlier I gain the added advantage of building a modular rocket that can be rapidly adapted, repair and scaled. this plus the fact that I can travel with the entire rocket in a A4 sized suitcase across borders and can assemble the system on launch day is just some of the advantages.
When it comes down to design aspect, the intent for this rocket is electronically fired dual deploy rocket which is not easy todo with D to F motors ( Specially with Air brakes if you watched my first AspireONE video. So designing each body section in modular fashion allows me to alter Avionics bays, landing legs, motor sizes, length, nose cones, even swop or send design pieces to someone with the same connector system.
The final goal for wet weight with PLA is around 10oz and with LW-PLA is around 7.9 to 8.5oz for the entire system. With a motor mount change and adding the 2mm carbon fiber spares to the pre allocated spine holes, This same platform should be able to be scaled to MRP motors.
Next steps is going to be combining PLA/ASA/ABS frames with LW-PLA skin to best of both worlds.
This was video of one of the first PLA versions with 100mm body sections but would be more suited to F to G sized motors due to weight
STEM Test Fitment
Last edited:
