Something I've been thinking about over the last couple days. As someone who is part of a university team myself, that had an upper stage ignition failure due to a faulty AV bay, this is a question that is near and dear to my heart.
A lot of university teams, particularly those aiming to do a 328k foot launch, have settled upon a multi-stage vehicle. (In fact, the only single-stage vehicle I'm aware of is USCRPL's Traveler III). Of those that have attempted launches, a lot of their failures revolve around problems with the sustainer/upper stage:
I understand that airstarts are particularly problematic in general, primarily because of heat transfer issues at altitude, but it surprises me that teams that should have access to a wealth of knowledge about military-spec igniters through their own university archives are either not taking advantage of it or hitting some other roadblock. (It also surprises me that, with the number of people just generally doing multi-stage rockets, that a COTS high-altitude igniter doesn't exist).
To me, and my experience browsing this forum, it seems that the most sound solution is to have a dual-redundant ematch/grain sliver bagged in a glove finger stuck up in there. But I'm not an engineer, I'm a geologist, and we're currently in enough of a financial bind that I can't afford to get up to the range with a preliminary design to test something like that. And the ranges up here close for the winter soon, anyway.
So why might these teams be having such issues? Does it revolve around a lack of access to knowledge, "not-invented-here" syndrome, an unwillingness to go out and communicate with experienced rocketeers, or something else? More tangentially, is there a way to test igniters at simulated altitude on the ground?
A lot of university teams, particularly those aiming to do a 328k foot launch, have settled upon a multi-stage vehicle. (In fact, the only single-stage vehicle I'm aware of is USCRPL's Traveler III). Of those that have attempted launches, a lot of their failures revolve around problems with the sustainer/upper stage:
- Princeton University: Two-stage "powered dart," M1378 to O5040-X. Upper stage failed to ignite.
- Virginia Tech: Two-stage conventional, Q to P. Upper stage ignited during launch prep.
- TU Wien: Two-stage "powered dart," likely N or M to N5800 (unknown impulse in sustainer). Upper stage failed to ignite.
- University of Southern California: Single-stage conventional, likely R or S (unknown impulse). Stage ignited before AV bay turned on.
I understand that airstarts are particularly problematic in general, primarily because of heat transfer issues at altitude, but it surprises me that teams that should have access to a wealth of knowledge about military-spec igniters through their own university archives are either not taking advantage of it or hitting some other roadblock. (It also surprises me that, with the number of people just generally doing multi-stage rockets, that a COTS high-altitude igniter doesn't exist).
To me, and my experience browsing this forum, it seems that the most sound solution is to have a dual-redundant ematch/grain sliver bagged in a glove finger stuck up in there. But I'm not an engineer, I'm a geologist, and we're currently in enough of a financial bind that I can't afford to get up to the range with a preliminary design to test something like that. And the ranges up here close for the winter soon, anyway.
So why might these teams be having such issues? Does it revolve around a lack of access to knowledge, "not-invented-here" syndrome, an unwillingness to go out and communicate with experienced rocketeers, or something else? More tangentially, is there a way to test igniters at simulated altitude on the ground?
Last edited: