What did you do rocket wise today?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I got 2/3 of the fin area sanded on the Maxi Alpha, it may not be too bad after I get the first application of spot filler on. I have to get my son to get me a new epoxy cartridge and fix the one loose fin as well.
 
I ordered a new rocket after discovering it last night, it's now my 2nd favorite rocket. I sold an item, so I have money in my Paypal account, as that's the only source of play money, is selling things. :(
8vIXc4j.jpg
My absolute FAV Rocketaruim kit
 
Sorry to hear about the rocket. Good luck with the Quasar. Very interested to hear end-user reports of its relative difficulty to solder. From reading the assembly manual, it doesn't look too bad.
Yesterday - sent my LOC IV with an I-500 with a goal to reach a mile. I hope to one day find that rocket and learn whether I achieved that goal. The Pawnee Grasslands are vast, and 2.75 miles of walking was enough for me.

Today (in related news) - moved my soldering station from the garage to the house, so I can assemble my Eggtimer Quasar rig. If I’m gonna walk a few miles, I wanna know where I’m going.
Hi Scott;

For what it's worth, I lost a rocket at Pawnee once and one of my fellow fliers found it and contacted me. I'm hoping that your contact info is on the rocket. Best wishes for an early recovery.

Jim
 
Why is the JLCR disallowed but not the TD? Just curious on the justification between the two.
ya know, not entirely sure (and I should look it up..) I believe it will have something to do with it being "less reliable" for:
  • The intended chute size (some of these chutes are 12 -15 feet dia)
  • The atl from which is is dropping (Altitudes of 10k feet and upwards; 15K & 30K are realistic / achievable)
  • It has a max alt of 1000 ft. (most teams want 1500ft opening / main event)
How many L3 flyers use a chute release for their chutes? These student rockets fall into that category: 6" dia (or larger) 12' tall (or taller) and a wet mass of 40lbs or more.. And typically on a 98mm M, N, and O motors..
 
ya know, not entirely sure (and I should look it up..) I believe it will have something to do with it being "less reliable" for:
  • The intended chute size (some of these chutes are 12 -15 feet dia)
  • The atl from which is is dropping (Altitudes of 10k feet and upwards; 15K & 30K are realistic / achievable)
  • It has a max alt of 1000 ft. (most teams want 1500ft opening / main event)
How many L3 flyers use a chute release for their chutes? These student rockets fall into that category: 6" dia (or larger) 12' tall (or taller) and a wet mass of 40lbs or more.. And typically on a 98mm M, N, and O motors..
Yup, those all make sense and I agree with them. The list of reasons in my head were about the same and I didn't know if there were any other major reasons.

Since the traditional dual deploy is about as simple as it can get, and in my eyes the most reliable, I'm curious why the teams shun it in favor of other methods. The only reason I can think of is lack of space.
 
Yup, those all make sense and I agree with them. The list of reasons in my head were about the same and I didn't know if there were any other major reasons.

Since the traditional dual deploy is about as simple as it can get, and in my eyes the most reliable, I'm curious why the teams shun it in favor of other methods. The only reason I can think of is lack of space.

It really is a lack of experience. Remember, most of these "kids" have never done rocketry, nor have ever attended a rocketry event. (Event the institute ""mentors" lack any "real" rocketry knowledge) A large portion have done the Estes, and those close to an event (Typically only those from either the Montreal or Toronto area) have attended large events. But these tend to be once-a-year events.

They do what they think is right, and try to keep things "simple". And that typically means one bay for the recovery.. Which leads to the next challenge: how to deploy a main at a low altitude while under drogue.. Cue teh deployment bags & a tether to hold things in place untill needed..

A lot of these project also fail to understand the 'thrust ring' about the bottom of the motor; they try to get the thrust path thru the motor casing, butting the forward closure up against a bulk head.

Many have fins attached with a piece of angle & screws..
 
It really is a lack of experience. Remember, most of these "kids" have never done rocketry, nor have ever attended a rocketry event. (Event the institute ""mentors" lack any "real" rocketry knowledge) A large portion have done the Estes, and those close to an event (Typically only those from either the Montreal or Toronto area) have attended large events. But these tend to be once-a-year events.

They do what they think is right, and try to keep things "simple". And that typically means one bay for the recovery.. Which leads to the next challenge: how to deploy a main at a low altitude while under drogue.. Cue teh deployment bags & a tether to hold things in place untill needed..

A lot of these project also fail to understand the 'thrust ring' about the bottom of the motor; they try to get the thrust path thru the motor casing, butting the forward closure up against a bulk head.

Many have fins attached with a piece of angle & screws..
Would it make sense for the previous years teams to put together something that could be compiled and shared with the next years teams that would include things like lessons learned or best practices? Ideally that'd come from the mentors but if they're lacking practical experience, then it needs to come from a different source. I'd imagine that if the team had something like that to go over before design and build, it could save them time and effort in later changes to the design. Don't know if that'd run afoul of any other rules though.
 
Actually, it's what I've been doing since Wednesday of last week...
Was going to attempt my Level 3 Cert on the 3rd, but the cloud ceiling never lifted like the meteorologists predicted. So it was charge Lipos, assemble avionics, load charges, pack the truck, go to the launch site, stare at the sky & swear, go home, unpack the truck, dump charges, disassemble stuff & discharge/store LiPos... just now
finishing.

1670265201878.png
 
Would it make sense for the previous years teams to put together something that could be compiled and shared with the next years teams that would include things like lessons learned or best practices? Ideally that'd come from the mentors but if they're lacking practical experience, then it needs to come from a different source. I'd imagine that if the team had something like that to go over before design and build, it could save them time and effort in later changes to the design. Don't know if that'd run afoul of any other rules though.
Many teams seem to have a quick turn over. They all talk about 'passing on the knowledge' but some things get missed, or just the intent is there (no follow thru / nothing written down)

and the typical "engineering arrogance": It didn't work for them, But I'm different, I'll make it work! they just didn't think it .....

I suffer from this too: "eng arrogance" but I'm, old enough to now know better! (And appreciate there is always someone smarter than me, who can share actual learned knowledge!!)
 
Would it make sense for the previous years teams to put together something that could be compiled and shared with the next years teams that would include things like lessons learned or best practices? Ideally that'd come from the mentors but if they're lacking practical experience, then it needs to come from a different source. I'd imagine that if the team had something like that to go over before design and build, it could save them time and effort in later changes to the design. Don't know if that'd run afoul of any other rules though.

I would also point out that most teams don't know about Mark's book and then go ballistic when they get a copy!!

also, many don't know that these rockets they are designing are well documented in for the form of L3 docs & proposals. Again, many have that 'Huh!! Who knew!!" moment when the links are presented to them (for reference)
 
I would also point out that most teams don't know about Mark's book and then go ballistic when they get a copy!!

also, many don't know that these rockets they are designing are well documented in for the form of L3 docs & proposals. Again, many have that 'Huh!! Who knew!!" moment when the links are presented to them (for reference)
Would it make a difference to have an intro packet that includes that kind of information? I'm hoping it would save some time and effort and hopefully result in more successful flights.
 
This has become 90% of my daily work stress lately. I can relate.... Counterfit op-amps that don't perform to spec, non-working parts, parts that fail prematurely, or re-designing around parts that you just plain can't buy.
I feel your pain. Been about the last 2.5 years or so for me, at about 100%. Successfully though, with the $25million/year production line having no linestops.

Would it make sense for the previous years teams to put together something that could be compiled and shared with the next years teams that would include things like lessons learned or best practices? Ideally that'd come from the mentors but if they're lacking practical experience, then it needs to come from a different source. I'd imagine that if the team had something like that to go over before design and build, it could save them time and effort in later changes to the design. Don't know if that'd run afoul of any other rules though.
Succession planning is vital for improving each year. Everything needs to be documented and proceduralised and demonstrable to the new team members. Speaking from experience mentoring a team that does this well :) .
 
Some could argue that this somewhat defeats the purpose. These are [mainly] 3rd & 4th year students. And with the Internet, a lot of this is easily searched for (even just on this site alone!) So, it's not like it's Nuclear fission.. They can also search for other teams (They know they are not alone) and know the SPA / IREC cup has been going on for a few years.. (Dare I say 'Decades'?!)

Again, a bit of 'eng arrogance': they get the criteria,a nd design from that. No research to see what's been done before, what's works, what hasn't.. What did teams to do succeed, what failed, etc.. I do think some are surprised to see that 'this was done last year'; they think they are the 1st to do this..

and, "this was in the cabinet, might as well use it.."
 
Again, a bit of 'eng arrogance': they get the criteria,a nd design from that. No research to see what's been done before, what's works, what hasn't.
Isn't a basic, at least, lit review normally the starting point for research?

Some could argue that this somewhat defeats the purpose.
Yes, could go either way, but I prefer to learn from other peoples' mistakes where possible. Analysing "why" something has been done can be instructive, and need not be limiting to creativity if cultivated as such. Also, having procedures and documentation makes outcomes from successive flights repeatable.
 
Was the whole thing Mono-Coted or just the wings and tail?
I covered the whole thing in red and white. Sadly it disintegrated into a cloud of balsa shards after a few flights. I didn't yet have my Cannon super-micro rx/servo set - it was quite heavy and flew like a vaguely controllable brick.
 
I feel your pain. Been about the last 2.5 years or so for me, at about 100%. Successfully though, with the $25million/year production line having no linestops.
I hope you gain due recognition for that. Preventing problems in the first place is all too often less seen and less rewarded than solving them later, for all that it's by far the better thing.
 
As mentioned, all the presentations show the turn over, and all say 'they want to preserve & pass on' the knowledge. but we never know how in depth this is.. An most seem to only look at 'the big picture'

Remember, we are all older & have 'been around the track' a few times. We know..


As an FYI: I just had to tell my [relatively new] project manager that the screw they want to use won't work. it's a screw to hold down a relay. originally we have a 6-32 x 1-1/8" . They picked a 1-1/4" #6 self tapping screw, stainless. Why? They didn't look to see what was used (nor I fear don't know what "6-32" means, nor what a PEM nut is...). They grabbled the first #6 screw they saw, that was for "sheet metal". and Stainless, because we make equipment for the food industry..

It screws into a 6-32 PEM Nut
It is well inside the machine room, no where near food contact / exposed to the outside / wash down

Those two point seem to have escaped them..
 
I hope you gain due recognition for that. Preventing problems in the first place is all too often less seen and less rewarded than solving them later, for all that it's by far the better thing.
It is absolutely recognised, which is nice. Acknowledged with both words and dollars.
 
As an FYI: I just had to tell my [relatively new] project manager that the screw they want to use won't work. it's a screw to hold down a relay. originally we have a 6-32 x 1-1/8" . They picked a 1-1/4" #6 self tapping screw, stainless. Why? They didn't look to see what was used (nor I fear don't know what "6-32" means, nor what a PEM nut is...).
Well, I didn't know what a PEM nut is either, but I'm old enough and wise enough to look it up. Now I've learned something today.
 
Even though I have spent most of the last three days asleep. I did finish the 3" rocket I was working on. It's 3" LOC tube with a 54mm mmt. Dual deploy, 75" long and weighs 80oz. I'm calling it "NOT AGAIN". Because as I have been gaining experience with dual deploy I have crashed a few rockets. Most because I blew up the av-bays. I have since changed how I build av-bays.

And-It's a dark day where the Port-O-Potty goes. I have come to the discission to abandon the project as envisioned at first. It is to heavy to fly on anything smaller than a K or L. And that is if it doesn't get much heavier. So, I'm going to remove the fins, install a 54mm mmt and make a spool out of it. By ditching the fins it save a lot of weight. I'll still make one about 1/4 the size first and see how that goes. When I started it I thought it would be very light because of the foam board construction. Boy, was I wrong. Back to the drawing board.

Here is the 3". Copper Metallic on the body. I had thought about calling it Penny. But I figured I would get asked, who is Penny.
20221205_130054[1598].jpg20221205_130101[1597].jpg
 
Back
Top