What do you think is the future of model rocketry electronics/technologies?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
So, we can carelessly ignore BP's sensitivity to sparks or sharp electrical spikes from the electronics and the significant heat produced from pyros. It's all about kinetic energy in the theoretical world of both providing equal KE... [facepalm]

TP
No but we can carefully manage it as that hazard has not really been an issue in this hobby. Its KE that has the capacity for injury in this hobby, no recovery pyro heat. My pyro push rod generates negligible heat BTW.
 
No but we can carefully manage it as that hazard has not really been an issue in this hobby. Its KE that has the capacity for injury in this hobby, no recovery pyro heat. My pyro push rod generates negligible heat BTW.
[quiet chuckle] "These are not the hazards you're looking for [waves hand], he can go about his prep... move along"

TP
 
No but we can carefully manage it as that hazard has not really been an issue in this hobby. Its KE that has the capacity for injury in this hobby, no recovery pyro heat. My pyro push rod generates negligible heat BTW.
Irrespective John, well done [hats off] on your system. I hope to learn more about it in the not too distant future.

TP
 
Interesting rabbit hole: Wikipedia > Guanidine nitrate ... especially this reference: WayBack Machine > Jetex Propellants

The memories ( V-MAX Power ) !

Thanks @Spacedog49Krell !

-- kjh
I've read that a certain amount of alchemy had to be done to get guanidine nitrate to burn fast enough. So it wasn't JUST guanidine nitrate. For instance, if memory serves, there were little bits of asbestos in it!
I've also run across some papers about using air bag gas generators with ammonium nitrate. One problem there is keeping the ammonium nitrate stable. It has a bunch of phase transitions at temperatures you'd see inside a car, which make fuel grains break down as the volume changes up and down. One way to minimize this is to re-crystallize it with various substances, one of which is potassium nitrate. Igniting fuel that uses an ammonium nitrate oxidizer can sometimes be tricky, unless you pile up huge quantities in a warehouse and neglect it for 10 years.
Guanidine nitrate would probably make decent fuel for a solid rocket, burning somewhat cooler than some other oxidizers. I admit I don't know what the pressure exponent would be, but just a little fiddling with propep gives a decent ISP. Particularly if used with certain metals. I'm not going to go into quantities or anything, since that is verboten here.
The safety of the system is totally unrelated to the method of generating the kinetic energy to activate the system
Nitroglycerine? Lead azide? Tiny nuke? ;-)
 
You're down a very deep rabbit hole making some very wild assumptions about what's possible. Among other things:
  • Weldable 100 ksi steel is a rare beast. 50-75 ksi is relatively common, but more than that is a challenge. Sure, you can get 100 ksi tool or spring steel, but you can't make a pressure vessel out of that. High strength steel is commonly heat treated and/or high carbon. The former loses strength when welded, and the latter isn't weldable.
We don't need very much. In any case, 4130 is not rare, and can be heat treated post weld, though that seems like a lot of trouble.

We could also avoid welding, with a bit of cleverness. Look at older, high quality bicycles. Should we make our air tank out of Reynolds 531? Or, perhaps, we could stamp out hemispheres.

In any case, this is all easily evaded by going to aluminum and making it 3 times as thick, for the same total weight. And heat treated if welded, but I think relying on welding shows a certain lack of creativity, unless it's spot welding or ultrasonic something.

Another way to avoid it is to use something like a tiny soda bottle. Or a little Kevlar sphere or cylinder, but that's expensive.

  • I don't do pressure vessels, so I'm willing to be corrected, but a factor of safety of 3.33:1 seems light for a 150-psi air canister. I would expect 5:1 to 7:1. You're walking around with a grenade, so you need to treat it as such.
Addressed by someone else. It's not an absurd safety factor. I've been within several feet of a two liter soda bottle that had 140 psi in it. If it was like a grenade, someone would have been injured. We are talking about 5 percent as much volume and little more pressure than that bottle. I admit that, when it burst, the towel to prevent shrapnel actually got a hole ripped in it and that the landlord came upstairs in 5 seconds. Better to have an older, slower landlord living further away. Don't do this at home, folks.
  • How are you forming this mythical beastie? You're probably going to have to weld it somewhere, and you can't weld foil. I would guess that the minimum wall thickness is ~1/16" for a one-sided weld. Again, I'm willing to be corrected.
There are different welding processes and alternatives to welding, some addressed above.
  • You have to connect tubing to the pressure vessel to do something useful. That means more welding and more stress concentrations requiring thicker walls at the connections.
No you don't. If the pressure vessel is in the right place, you can just release the cap, let two halves separate, or something like that. The larger, quicker opening means less wasted energy. What kind of and how much tubing do they attach to pyro charges?
  • You have to support this thing at 100-200G for high performance rockets and for failures. That takes some more wall thickness plus support points.
If it's empty, you've got a problem anyway, and if it's full, it's got considerable support. In any case there are a number of other popular devices which won't handle that many g's. I looked at an Altus Metrum system manual. 4 of the devices listed are rated for 50g's or less, one to only 16. Another is rated to 70. See page 79:
https://altusmetrum.org/AltOS/doc/altusmetrum.pdf
There's a reason the CO2 cylinders are the thickness and weight they are.
Yes. One of the reasons is economizing when weight is not critical. Another is to take so much abuse that it would destroy a number of rockets, such as in a cautious commercial diver's buoyancy compensator. If our pressure vessel is only pressurized when inside the rocket, it's not going to get bashed anywhere near as hard.

When designing something new, it helps to come up with ways to do things before inventing the ways that it can't possibly work. If it's a new problem, the constraints aren't likely to be exactly the same as they have been with other problems.
Within the scope of our hobby not absurd hypotheticals.
Lead azide is NOT an absurd hypothetical. A housemate, years ago, made it and set it off. His was dried out on paper. A roommate, when he was a kid, made some, allowed it to dry out in a glass container, had it go off, and ended up with a little bit of glass in his eye. Fortunately, his eye recovered fully. Sodium azide is used, or maybe was used, in auto airbags. In any case, banning absurd hypotheticals in humor is unnecessary. I even put a smiley in for the stonefaces.

Nitroglycerine isn't so hard to make either. You may already be using it if your pyro charges are made from a double base smokeless powder.

As far as tiny nukes go, give it a couple of centuries. I don't know enough to say that they can't come up with a transuranic element with a reasonable half-life, a tiny critical mass, and a low yield. Time to push the accelerators. ;-)
 
Lead azide is NOT an absurd hypothetical. A housemate, years ago, made it and set it off. His was dried out on paper. A roommate, when he was a kid, made some, allowed it to dry out in a glass container, had it go off, and ended up with a little bit of glass in his eye. Fortunately, his eye recovered fully. Sodium azide is used, or maybe was used, in auto airbags. In any case, banning absurd hypotheticals in humor is unnecessary. I even put a smiley in for the stonefaces.

Nitroglycerine isn't so hard to make either. You may already be using it if your pyro charges are made from a double base smokeless powder.

As far as tiny nukes go, give it a couple of centuries. I don't know enough to say that they can't come up with a transuranic element with a reasonable half-life, a tiny critical mass, and a low yield. Time to push the accelerators. ;-)
Correct not absurd, but maybe an absurd selection for the task at hand.
 
Correct not absurd, but maybe an absurd selection for the task at hand.
Not absurd. Reckless. I'm pretty sure it would work, other than the toxicity factor and the sensitivity to going off, and the latter can probably be dealt with. Lead azide is so not absurd that NASA has used it in a number of pyrotechnic devices on their spacecraft
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730011151/downloads/19730011151.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_standard_detonator
I am not sure, but I think it's been used in their parachute mortars, along with some other chemicals.
-------
Incidentally, the 0.1 liter of air compressed to 150 psi"grenade" can release about 120 joules* when set off quickly, twice that if set off very slowly. If I used the following correctly, anyway:
https://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/thermodynamics.htm

An M67 grenade has about 6.5 ounces of "composition B", according to Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M67_grenade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
If we can trust Wikipedia's "relative effectiveness" number, that works out to about a million joules. If we can believe the same source, a gram of black powder should have about 23,000 2,300 joules.

I have an intuition that the energy in compressed air, if released very quickly, such as by a bursting or splitting container, would be used much more efficiently than that obtained from black powder. Otherwise, my towel wouldn't have a hole in it. The hole, BTW, is several inches long.

*Or 2,400 for the 2 liter bottle, just a bit over what you could get from 0.1 g 1 g of black powder and 0.24 percent of the grenade. See above.
 
Last edited:
Not absurd. Reckless. I'm pretty sure it would work, other than the toxicity factor and the sensitivity to going off, and the latter can probably be dealt with. Lead azide is so not absurd that NASA has used it in a number of pyrotechnic devices on their spacecraft
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730011151/downloads/19730011151.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_standard_detonator
I am not sure, but I think it's been used in their parachute mortars, along with some other chemicals.
-------
Incidentally, the 0.1 liter of air compressed to 150 psi"grenade" can release about 120 joules* when set off quickly, twice that if set off very slowly. If I used the following correctly, anyway:
https://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/thermodynamics.htm

An M67 grenade has about 6.5 ounces of "composition B", according to Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M67_grenade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
If we can trust Wikipedia's "relative effectiveness" number, that works out to about a million joules. If we can believe the same source, a gram of black powder should have about 23,000 joules.

I have an intuition that the energy in compressed air, if released very quickly, such as by a bursting or splitting container, would be used much more efficiently than that obtained from black powder. Otherwise, my towel wouldn't have a hole in it. The hole, BTW, is several inches long.

*Or 2,400 for the 2 liter bottle, just a bit over what you could get from 0.1 g of black powder and 0.24 percent of the grenade. See above.
But why do we need that much energy to deploy recovery? Seems like a weakness of the recovery deployment concept doesn't it?
 
So how about pumping 100 psi of compressed air into a nose cone, and releasing it with some kind of non-pyro valve? Or even a pyro valve... it wouldn't take more than an ematch and a little pyrogen to do it.
 
How about a pneumatic bladder that secures the nose cone to the airframe and deployment is simply releasing the air from the bladder and nose cone falls off and pulls the recovery laundry out of the airframe with a drogue.

Let move on from cannon blasts and compresed air or compressed CO2 or violent gas generators. Instead of scaling up Estes rocket method, scale down sounding rocket method.
 
If we can trust Wikipedia's "relative effectiveness" number, that works out to about a million joules. If we can believe the same source, a gram of black powder should have about 23,000 joules.
I think you could be about an order of mag over for your 1g of BP - should be about 2800J/g

Everything else looks okay on a quick glance

TP
 
Nobody has mentioned conventional ejection charges plus pistons yet.

I am working on getting rid of a PML piston in a beater rocket I found in the shed a few weeks ago. They tend to stick if not well maintained. Then use the rocket on any questionable older motors.

I didn't build it, or would have left it off. I saw them stick a lot in the winter, especially if using the gray PVC tubes.
They get sticky in the old PML phenolic tubes when old and lots of ejection charge grime buildup also.
 
I think you could be about an order of mag over for your 1g of BP - should be about 2800J/g

Everything else looks okay on a quick glance

TP
Good catch. Those ~!@#$%^ PESKY decimal points! Thank you.

It's too bad. Can you imagine black powder motors with an Isp of 820*?

*If I did it right, an Estes D12, based on info at thrustcurve.org, has an Isp of about 82. Of course, that includes a delay charge and an ejection charge, so maybe it's really 100 or so, which would be similar to what I get from Propep.

I am working on getting rid of a PML piston in a beater rocket I found in the shed a few weeks ago. They tend to stick if not well maintained. Then use the rocket on any questionable older motors.

I didn't build it, or would have left it off. I saw them stick a lot in the winter, especially if using the gray PVC tubes.
They get sticky in the old PML phenolic tubes when old and lots of ejection charge grime buildup also.
Maybe sand it down a bit and put it in a teflon bag, or use teflon tape? At a job, long ago, we put PVC on hot metal to soften it. If someone left it too long, it would burn and stick. So we used tape which was probably like this:
https://www.mcmaster.com/76495A54/
 
How about a pneumatic bladder that secures the nose cone to the airframe and deployment is simply releasing the air from the bladder and nose cone falls off and pulls the recovery laundry out of the airframe with a drogue.

Let move on from cannon blasts and compresed air or compressed CO2 or violent gas generators. Instead of scaling up Estes rocket method, scale down sounding rocket method.
That's actually similar to what the Vashon rockets did... they had a small coupler with a disk that expanded when pressurized, it forced a flat spring up that "caught" the parachute coupler. Pressure release was controlled with some paper disks... when the pressure on the motor was released, it allowed the pressure in the coupler to slowly bleed out. Pretty elegant, actually.
 
That's actually similar to what the Vashon rockets did... they had a small coupler with a disk that expanded when pressurized, it forced a flat spring up that "caught" the parachute coupler. Pressure release was controlled with some paper disks... when the pressure on the motor was released, it allowed the pressure in the coupler to slowly bleed out. Pretty elegant, actually.
Darn, there goes my patent.
 
Back to our regularly scheduled program ... :)

I want this: Dual deployment in a BT20 (18mm) min diameter rocket

Waiting patiently for @Adrian A's product release announcement ... I just know that I'll have my elementary school granddaughters doing calculus soon after the release, but no pressure, Adrian :)

-- kjh
I'm getting close to flying my 18mm 1000Hz flight recorder. I could add two pyro channels to it to make it a full flight computer with DD.

I was doing Calculus in 7th grade. My father was the high school's Math teacher.
 
Back to our regularly scheduled program ... :)

I want this: Dual deployment in a BT20 (18mm) min diameter rocket

Waiting patiently for @Adrian A's product release announcement ... I just know that I'll have my elementary school granddaughters doing calculus soon after the release, but no pressure, Adrian :)

-- kjh
I'm focused on my 3-stage flight that I'll send up at BALLS in about a week and then the Blue Jay will get my attention when I get back.
 
I'm getting close to flying my 18mm 1000Hz flight recorder. I could add two pyro channels to it to make it a full flight computer with DD.
Nice, Krell !

I've seen your data -- it looks great !

Will this be a commercial product ?

Do you have any pics of the gadget ?

I was doing Calculus in 7th grade. My father was the high school's Math teacher.
My dad was a ChemE who also loved math.

He had us playing with chemistry sets when we were in elementary school.

He might have taught us about oxidizers long before we should have learned about the fun stuff :)

-- kjh
 
I'm focused on my 3-stage flight that I'll send up at BALLS in about a week and then the Blue Jay will get my attention when I get back.
I knew that !

Sorry about the distraction but thanks for sharing the name of your new gadget ( I like it ) !

Now, focus on your flight and good luck !

-- kjh
 
Last edited:
Back
Top