More "The Big Picture" shots from space

The big picture

Selene falls slowly towards the Moon

SELENE (Selenological and Engineering Explorer)

JAXA
Wiki

Stratospheric Dreams

One of my personal favorite rocket attempts of all time was this one; an S motor attempt, that sadly failed in a CATO. Simmed to hit over 100,000 feet (claimed at 115,000), the most impressive part of the project has to be the quality of the parts used. At all times this rocket was built like a professional sounding rocket. The fins were actually modified sounding rocket fins, cut down to an appropriate size. Equally impressive was the fact that this rocket was attempted so many years ago. If it had flown, it would have been one of the most famous rockets in the hobby. That it failed does not, to me, justify forgetting it. Just like the OuR rocket, it would be great to see more documentation of this flight. The construction video (called monster rockets, I think) covers this rocket and project 463 in great detail. But it is not available on DVD yet. It is unfair for me to be so critical of others, but I have to think that if I spent thousands of dollars and months in building (and painting; doesn't the purple look great?) an S motor rocket, that I would be willing to throw together a web page showing it off. Perhaps some day...

From the Rocket Dungeon

Team Prometheus Balloon to Near Space

Team Prometheus is a team working on the N-Prize.

ss-25 "Topol"

Single 550 KT warhead.

_________________________________________

*Most recent Google searches to this web page:

(Google robot please note this is not spam.)

high power model rocket photos
high power rocketry
high power rocket motors
3420 mph rocket how many g force (I love this one! If you read this, please tell us what you were working on.)
high altitude amateur rocket

Some great rocketry research going on out there!

Project Orion

Below is a youtube video series on Project Orion. I have yet to watch all of the videos.







The best part of Project Orion is the fact that it could, with proven technology and reasonably small costs, send people to Mars and beyond in style. Indeed manned missions to Saturn and Jupiter could also have been done. A small Orion spacecraft could even be launched into near space with solid rocket motors, and then turned on at a safe altitude. This would be a great use for the large nuclear stockpiles in the US and Russia. Source

Saturn V F-1 Nozzle

Google loves this blog!

For some reason...

High Power
High Power Rocket
High Power Rocketry
Sprint ABM

This page only gets at most 50 hits a day, yet it ranks at times above, and others only one below the TRA web page. If only the quality of posts was consistent enough to justify this ranking.

2009: The year of the motor!

A huge set of new motors is on the way down the pipeline at the very moment. Most of them come from Cesaroni, but Aerotech also just announced three end burner motors (one with an extra grain of white lightning propellant to get things started quickly, for boost power.) What we seldom appreciate while using motors, or I seldom do anyway, is just how much RnD goes into any given motor. Then there is extensive testing before final certification. Here are some videos from tests of various new CES motors:

Aerospace web FAQ

"Aerospaceweb.org is a non-profit site operated by engineers and scientists in the aerospace field. The goal of this site is to provide educational information on a variety of subjects ranging from aviation to space travel to aerospace technology. Our primary areas of expertise include aerodynamics, propulsion systems, vehicle design, engineering career information, and aerospace history. Learn more about these and other topics by visiting the following sections of our site."

Below is a link to a ton of aerospace and science questions that are great to read. Included among these is a discussion of 9-11 conspiracy theories, which obviously results in a pretty solid shutdown of the claims that some people make.

FAQ Archive

Joint Statement from NAR-TRA

Joint Statement on the BATFE Litigation

May 18, 2009

Since the U. S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives has not appealed the decision of the Federal District Court of March 16, 2009, which ordered the agency to vacate their classification of APCP as an explosive, and the period for their ability to do so has expired as of May 16, 2009, on advice of counsel, we believe that the judgment is considered final although we have not received confirmation from BATFE.  Accordingly, members may operate under the understanding that APCP rocket motors are no longer regulated as an explosive material by BATFE, and no longer require the permits formerly required by the agency to buy, sell, or possess such motors.

Members possessing a LEUP are advised that they should evaluate their individual situation based upon whether they possess (or plan to possess) and store materials that are still considered regulated by BATFE. While APCP rocket motors are now no longer regulated under the requirements of the "Orange Book" and are not subject to requiring a LEUP, other materials may be subject to these requirements.

Members are also reminded that both TRA and NAR safety codes stipulate what motors they may possess, depending on their level of flyer certification. These rules still apply to our members. We likewise strongly encourage vendors of hobby rocket motors to continue to work cooperatively with the rocketry community to only sell rocket motors to customers who possess flyer certifications commensurate with the motors they wish to purchase. Ensuring we maintain our strong level of self-regulation will be an essential element in our ability to retain this freedom from overregulation by outside agencies.

Members should immediately contact the leadership of TRA or NAR should they encounter situations where any BATFE personnel conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the final judgment of the Federal District Court.

Ken Good

TRA President

 

Trip Barber

NAR President

Ares 1

To my mind, this rocket is a great replacement for the shuttle because it will be far cheaper and safer.  It is a no brainer to chose large solid motors for a first stage of any rocket system.  They don't get the high ISPs, and the per pound cost of propellant is quite high as well when compared to Kerosene or hydrogen, but the real savings come in simplicity.  RnD, ground support, and complex engines cover most of the expense of any rocket system.  Monolithic motors of any size can be produced at fairly low costs, and reused all the same.  One great goal would be submarine hull style solid motors representing a first stage for a 1 million lbs to orbit rocket.  The Sea Dragon would probably have worked well with such a first stage. A few of the rockets planned to replace the Saturn V (never produced due to a shift in funding and policy, as well as the Shuttle taking up a ton of resources) had solids as first stage motors.

But to put things simply, other than being a generally better design in every way, this rocket gets something right that the Shuttle got horribly wrong: You don't mix men and payload.

Shuttle against the Sun

From The Rocketry Blog

Can you indentify this rocket?

Source: White Sands Missile Range Museum

Can you help identify this rocket? It is an Air Force rocket that was flown as the White Sands Missile Range. To date, I have not been able to find out what it is. And I do not think that anyone else knows. If you can help, please place a comment. Even wild speculation and guesses would be OK, because it is so quiet and somewhat boring around here!

Here is a link suggested by Dick, showing that the scale experts are also wondering about this.

"The picture at right is an unidentified prototype flown from White Sands Missile Range. It vaguely resembles General Electric's Hermes A-3B from 1954. If you know the identity of this rocket, please post to the group or contact the moderator directly."

Project NOTS EV-1 (NOTSNIK)

This is, above all others, the sister rocket to my personal favorite; Project Farside. But in NOTS EV-1 launches, the complex but rather small rocket (again very similar) is lofted to modest altitude and velocity by a jet aircraft, rather than the very high altitude but negligible speed of a Farside launch. And obviously, the target for Farside was to attain high altitude but NOT orbit, altitudes of up to 4000 miles if possible, and for EV-1 the target was to orbit a very small satellite. But all the same, this project excites my personal interest in early rocketry and certain attempts that seem the most daring, and the least likely to succeed. This project has been classified for a long time, and it is likely that some information is still missing (perhaps forever). However one of the new rocketry books as seen in a previous post does discuss this project in decent detail; The First Space Race: Launching the World's First Satellites

"Project Pilot was the first attempt to create a air launched satellite launch vehicle. The vehicle was better known by its nickname 'NOTSNIK', a combination of NOTS and Sputnik. The NOTS-EV1 was also the first all solid orbital vehicle. It was launched by a Douglas F-4D1 Skyray airplane. After separation from the aircraft, the first pair of HOTROC motors, derived from the SUBROC anti submarine missile, were ignited. Five seconds later, the second pair was ignited. After jettisoning the first stage, the X-241 and NOTS Extruded motors put the payload into a transfer orbit, which was circularised half a orbit later by the fourth stage, which was mounted backwards in fron tof the payload. As the vehicle was designed for maximum simplicity it featured no moving parts.

4 ground launched tests were made with only one pair of live HOTROCS. The first 2 failed due to exploding motors, the other two due to structural failure.

All launches apparently failed, most due to structural failures. Some rumours exist, that the payloads of the first and third orbital launch attempt reached orbit, but this remains very doubtful as an engineer involved in the project recalls, that there were some signals picked up by ground stations, but those were most probably not from the satellite."


-From Gunther's Space Page

"Approved in early 1958, the project proceeded rapidly by relying on existing rocket motors and other components readily available. The NOTSNIK vehicle was carried aboard a Douglas F4D-1 Skyray fighter to a high altitude where its rocket motors were fired for the trip into orbit. The rocket was designed to be released while the F4D-1 was traveling at a speed of more than 450 mph (725 km/h) and in a 50° climb to a launch altitude of 41,000 ft (12,500 m). Upon release, the first of five rocket stages was ignited. Both the first and second stages included two HOTROC solid rocket motors derived from the booster used on the SUBROC anti-submarine rocket-boosted torpedo. The first stage rockets ignited three seconds after release from the parent aircraft and remained operational for just five seconds. Following a twelve second coast phase, the second stage pair of HOTROC motors ignited for another five second burn.

By the time the second stage exhausted, NOTSNIK had achieved an altitude of about 50 miles (80 km). The structure containing both the first and second stages was then jettisoned as the third stage ignited. Consisting of an ABL X-241 solid rocket, this stage burned for 36 seconds before the fourth stage motor ignited for a 5.7 second long burn. By now, the vehicle had reached a very low and extremely eccentric transfer orbit. The orbit was stabilized into a more circular orbit by the fifth and final stage consisting of a NOTS 3-inch Spherical rocket motor.

This combination of rocket stages boosted by an aircraft launch platform had the capability to place a very small payload of just 2.3 lb (1.05 kg) into an orbit of 1,400 miles (2,250 km) altitude. The payload reportedly included a small infrared camera, designed to take images of the ground or collect weather data, and a transmitter to return signals to Earth. Since this payload could potentially be used as a reconnaissance system, the entire project was classified top secret and remained unknown to the public for many years."
- From Aerospaceweb.org



"Stage 0: 1 x F-6A. Gross Mass: 10,474 kg (23,091 lb). Empty Mass: 6,869 kg (15,143 lb). Motor: 1 x J57-8. Thrust (vac): 71.137 kN (15,992 lbf). Isp: 2,770 sec. Burn time: 3,600 sec. Length: 13.93 m (45.70 ft). Diameter: 4.05 m (13.28 ft). Propellants: Air/Kerosene.
Stage 1: 2 x Project Pilot-1. Gross Mass: 100 kg (220 lb). Empty Mass: 27 kg (59 lb). Motor: 1 x HOTROC. Thrust (vac): 63.200 kN (14,208 lbf). Burn time: 4.90 sec. Length: 1.80 m (5.90 ft). Diameter: 0.30 m (0.98 ft). Propellants: Solid.
Stage 2: 2 x Project Pilot-1. Gross Mass: 100 kg (220 lb). Empty Mass: 27 kg (59 lb). Motor: 1 x HOTROC. Thrust (vac): 63.200 kN (14,208 lbf). Burn time: 4.90 sec. Length: 1.80 m (5.90 ft). Diameter: 0.30 m (0.98 ft). Propellants: Solid.
Stage 3: 1 x Project Pilot 1-3. Gross Mass: 200 kg (440 lb). Empty Mass: 25 kg (55 lb). Motor: 1 x X-241. Thrust (vac): 12.100 kN (2,720 lbf). Burn time: 36 sec. Length: 1.50 m (4.90 ft). Diameter: 0.46 m (1.50 ft). Propellants: Solid.
Stage 4: 1 x Project Pilot 1-4. Gross Mass: 10 kg (22 lb). Empty Mass: 3.00 kg (6.60 lb). Motor: 1 x NOTS 8. Thrust (vac): 5.100 kN (1,147 lbf). Burn time: 5.70 sec. Length: 0.50 m (1.64 ft). Diameter: 0.20 m (0.65 ft). Propellants: Solid.
Stage 5: 1 x Project Pilot 1-5. Empty Mass: 1.00 kg (2.20 lb). Motor: 1 x NOTS 3SM. Thrust (vac): 700 N (150 lbf). Burn time: 1.00 sec. Length: 0.10 m (0.32 ft). Diameter: 0.0800 m (0.2620 ft). Propellants: Solid.

Project Pilot Chronology

1958 July 4 - China Lake G-2. Project Pilot-1 FAILURE: Failure. Test mission Agency: USN. Apogee: 0 km ( mi).
1958 July 18 - China Lake G-2. Project Pilot-1 FAILURE: Failure. Test mission Agency: USN. Apogee: 0 km ( mi).
1958 July 25 - Santa Barbara Channel DZ -. Project Pilot 1 FAILURE: Radio contact lost; possibly reached orbit. Pilot 1 Spacecraft: Pilot. Agency: USN. Apogee: 12 km (7 mi).
1958 August 12 - Santa Barbara Channel DZ -. Project Pilot 2 FAILURE: Vehicle exploded at ignition. Pilot 2 Spacecraft: Pilot. Agency: USN. Apogee: 12 km (7 mi).
1958 August 16 - China Lake G-2. Project Pilot-1 FAILURE: Failure. Test mission Agency: USN. Apogee: 0 km ( mi).
1958 August 17 - China Lake G-2. Project Pilot-1 FAILURE: Failure. Test mission Agency: USN. Apogee: 0 km ( mi).
1958 August 22 - Santa Barbara Channel DZ -. Project Pilot 3 FAILURE: Radio contact lost; possibly reached orbit. Pilot 3 Spacecraft: Pilot. Agency: USN. Apogee: 0 km ( mi).
1958 August 25 - Santa Barbara Channel DZ -. Project Pilot 4 FAILURE: Vehicle exploded after 0.75sec. Pilot 4 Spacecraft: Pilot. Agency: USN. Apogee: 12 km (7 mi).
1958 August 26 - Santa Barbara Channel DZ -. Project Pilot 5 FAILURE: Stage failed to ignite, vehicle fell into Pacific. Pilot 5 Spacecraft: Pilot. Agency: USN. Apogee: 12 km (7 mi).
1958 August 28 - Santa Barbara Channel DZ -. Project Pilot 6 FAILURE: One first stage motor failed to ignite, causing structural failure. Pilot 6 Spacecraft: Pilot. Agency: USN. Apogee: 12 km (7 mi)."

- From Encyclopedia Astronautica

It is fascinating to see that many of these launches were at China Lake, your typical ultra secret desert test range, but also at the Santa Barbara Channel "Drop Zone" which is a rocket range.  A fellow researcher with whom I have worked remembered his post doc. work in the area, and how from time to time rocket launches would zoom past downrange.

Why did EV-1 and Farside have such poor sucsess rates?  Well first of all, most rockets fail early on in development, unless heroic efforts are put into testing programs before flight.  Solid rocket motors generally work just fine... but when combined in 4 or 5 or 6 stage rockets, Farside having 10 motors total for example, all bets are off.  Given time, there is no reason to think that these projects could not have worked out.  They were very complex, and that complexity may have made them unsuitable for future use.  Frankly they both have limited capabilities; each could only orbit or loft 2 - 5 lbs at a time.  Compare this to other rockets in the works at the time: The Redstone, The Thor, Project Vanguard, and the incredible Atlas.  Each would prove far more capable in time, offering one or several orders of magnitude improvement.

I would argue that these kinds of rockets that are complex, low cost, and all solid probably have more to offer for the modern amatuer community than for the professional community.

In any event, I just love the little J-700 5th stage motor for this project.  1 sec burn time, spherical.  Looks like an all stainless steel nozzle also.

The Earth from Space

There is a great 24 hour portrait of the Earth from a Clarke orbit, but sadly it can't be embedded. This spacecraft, Echostar 11, is in orbit around the earth at sufficient altitude so that it makes one orbit in about 24 hours. For this reason, it remains over the same part of the earth at any given time.

A day in the life of the planet.

Launch of E-Star 11

Echostar 11:

NORAD ID: 33207
Perigee: 35,781.7 km 
Apogee: 35,805.9 km 
Inclination: 0.1° 
Period: 1,436.1 min 
Launch date: July 16, 2008
Source: United States (US) 
Comments: A powerful new broadcaster for the DISH Network satellite television system was successfully shot into space today aboard a multi-national Sea Launch Zenit 3SL rocket. The satellite will use an onboard engine to reach a circular geostationary orbit 22,300 miles (35,900 km) above the equator where it can match Earth's rotation and seem parked over one spot of the globe. Its final destination will be the slot at 110 degrees West longitude to cover the United States.

Source

5 New rocketry books

Here are 5 new books from Amazon;

Apollo 12: The NASA Mission Reports
This book book is one in a large series of books by Apogee that covers many NASA missions in great detail, usually with a CD rom included, at a great price. Most of these can be found on Amazon for a few dollars. Apollo 12 was the 2nd moon landing mission, spending just over a day on the Lunar surface.

Project Vanguard: The NASA History
This book discusses project Vanguard, one of the first programs to attempt (and probably the third to succeed) in placing a satellite into orbit.

How Apollo Flew to the Moon
Having been rather unhappy about recent Praxis books, despite all the hype, I nevertheless chose to buy two more from them because these books got such great reviews. Only time will tell if they are up to snuff, or just overpriced. This book is all about the practical details behind the Apollo Program, navigation for example. Pretty interesting stuff.

Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006
This book is a comprehensive log of all manned spaceflight (as the title suggests) from the first manned flights to 2006.

The First Space Race: Launching the World's First Satellites
The last of this set of books covers the background behind orbital flight theory, the historical context for early attempts, and all of the initial projects seeking to place objects in orbit. This includes Vanguard, the Russian attempt (obviously the first), the first American orbit: Explorer launched on a modified Redstone (Jupiter C), and a classified military project which will be discussed more in a later post.

N - Prize

One can hardly improve upon the many posts and articles regarding the N-Prize, which has now been active for quite some time. We have discussed many of the possible plans and debated everything including the value of such a competition; one that is nearly impossible to complete. But all the same, there have been no substantial posts on this subject here at High Power. Below are some most relevant links, divided into general information and teams. This post will also be placed on a new R2K blog; N-Prize.

The official rules are:

"The challenge posed by the N-Prize is to launch a satellite weighing between 9.99 and 19.99 grams into Earth orbit, and to track it for a minimum of nine orbits. Most importantly, though, the launch budget must be within £999.99 (about $1500) - and must include the launch vehicle, all of the required non-reuseable launch equipment hardware, and propellant."

The reward is about $15,000, but really the reward is doing something very very hard.

Essential links and media reports:

N-Prize official site
Wiki entry
Google Group
Make article
New Scientist article

Participating teams:

Neblua
Epsilon
SARA
Micro Launchers
CU Spaceflight
Potent Voyager
Team Prometheus
Little Monster Rocket
Kiwi 2 Space
QI Spacecraft
Yit Space
Aerosplice
Daedalus Aerospace

_____________________________________________________


I would like to finish this brief discussion with my, purely hypothetical proposal to achieve the prize. Many of the above listed teams have great plans, some are traditional and others quite unconventional to say the least.

My plan:

The launch team would prepare a large helium balloon, probably an inexpensive homemade zero pressure balloon suitable for flight to or slightly above 100,000 feet altitude (near space.) Indeed if possible, 110,000 feet or 115,000 feet would greatly increase performance at little additional balloon costs. Attached to this balloon, large enough to carry approximately 100 lbs. to near space, will be a gondola package, launch tower, and rocket system. The electronics and documentation package will be maximally lightweight, on the order of 1 kg. The launch tower will also be as light as possible, made of carbon fiber or other composites (more on how to avoid the high cost of this item below), and will likely be on the order of 10 feet long. Most importantly, the rocket system will consist of an amateur O motor contained within a very light weight, minimum diameter dart airframe. This should be a high thrust O motor, an O 10,000 would be a suitable choice, or perhaps faster still. The reason for this is to achieve aerodynamic stability quickly in the thin air, which will be assisted by a 1 - 3 fps spin:

The rocket is to be fired at a 45 degree angle. At burnout, this rocket is expected to achieve a velocity of at least 5000 fps. This is, however, far short of what is required for orbit. After a short coast period, sufficient to allow the rocket to achieve an altitude of more than 50 miles, the second and final stage of the launch process will be ignited. However, as a result of the high cost of conventional rocket stages (rapidly pushing the price point over the limit), this 2nd (or perhaps 3rd) stage will consist of a shaped charge:

A powerful conic shaped charge will ignite. At the focus of this shaped charge, there will be a small metallic slug. This slug is to be lunched into orbit. This metal slug will consist of several layers, and will retain a basic useful form as in explosively shaped projectiles (see below.) Within the metal projectile, a burning thermite charge could eject chaff into orbit (for the sake of government assisted tracking), or some gas could be evolved from a filler material that will glow against the night sky and be visible from ground based telescopes. This may be compared to a tracer bullet, though it would have a full thickness of tracking material, sufficient to remain visible for 9 orbits:

This project minimizes to (according to my understanding) the lowest possible disposable cost, given a reasonable and realistic initial investment. The per launch cost, per the prize rules, would consist of the rocket propellant, shaped charge, balloon, and helium (or hydrogen). It is expected that the rocket proper and gondola and tower structure will be recovered. Having said that, it is hard to see how a small rocket launched at a 45 degree angle, into space or near space, could ever be recovered. This flaw may still not break the budget as a complete O motor and rocket could probably be built for a reasonably low cost, less than half of the total budget.

Finally, it should be noted that shaped charges seldom launch solid objects at hypersonic velocity, but in this project, nothing short of 15,000 fps is needed. This would likely be a record, and requires some really smart shaped charge design (if it is possible at all.) It may be that a 2nd or even 3rd stage would be needed to assure orbit. Also, care must be taken to avoid too much velocity, which could cause solar orbit. Perhaps using several stages could allow orbit without a shaped charge, but at what cost and complexity increases? I would welcome any comments about this plan.

Future posts may explore more about individual teams and their attempts.

Largest hobby rocket to date

Rocket was about 1600 LBS (a record) flying on one central P motor and 8 N motors. Recovery was good (unlike the last record.)

More coverage at The Rocket Dungeon

In the event Apollo 11 is lost

"On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon. The following speech, revealed in 1999, was prepared by Nixon's then speechwriter, William Safire, to be used in the event of a disaster that would maroon the astronauts on the moon:

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.
These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.

These two men are laying down their lives in mankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.

In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.

In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.

Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.

For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind."

Moon Disaster Speech

Some insane images from Saturn

The flagship scale space missions always produce great results. Cassini may be the most incredible planetary mission to date.

"NASA's Cassini spacecraft is now a nearly a year into its extended mission, called Cassini Equinox (after its initial 4-year mission ended in June, 2008). The spacecraft continues to operate in good health, returning amazing images of Saturn, its ring system and moons, and providing new information and science on a regular basis. The mission's name, "Equinox" comes from the upcoming Saturnian equinox in August, 2009, when its equator (and rings) will point directly toward the Sun. The Equinox mission runs through September of 2010, with the possibility of further extensions beyond that. Collected here are 24 more intriguing images from our ringed neighbor."

Cassini Big Picture 3
Cassini Big Picture 2
Cassini Big Picture 1

Earth gravity data

Gravity Data

"CHAMP (860 days) and GRACE (200 days) satellite gravity data have been combined with 0.5 x 0.5 deg surface data (gravimetry and altimetry) to generate the high resolution global gravity field model EIGEN-CG01C."



More details on these two spacecraft:


CHAMP






GRACE

Reaction Research Society Boosted Dart

Despite being among the most impressive amateur launches ever, I have yet to post about this project. The reason for posting at this time (many years later) is because I was recently given the flight data for this launch.

The best article about this boosted dart flight is not online, but rather in the November 1997 edition of "High Power Rocketry." HPR was by far the best rocketry magazine ever made. It is really more of a journal. In any event, the same magazine that got me started with the R rocket, had great coverage and analysis of this flight as well. That great coverage is exactly what is now missing from so many other projects. Perhaps it is tempting to just move on after a project, particularly if the flight fails, but that is doing a great disservice to the community. So in other words, please put as much effort into the debrief as you can for the sake of others.

In any event, this was an R motor with a stainless steel boosted dart on top. The dart carried a camera and transmitted images from near space, including a shot of the Blackrock lake bed looking about as big as a thumbnail. Both the booster and dart were recovered, the apogee was around 55 miles, give or take. Here is some of the interesting data that was sent to me by RRS member Bill Claybaugh:

To help catch everyone up on this flight profile; essentially the booster burn was about 4 seconds long, at which point the dart was released. Boosted darts are thin, dense, and designed to coast really well. It makes sense for a short burn booster in this case, so the dart spends most of its time alone coasting with limited drag. After the dart flew on, the booster was actually unstable because without the dart, and above mach 3, the CP and CG were overlapping. This caused the booster to corkscrew (yet somehow survive the stresses involved) and lose velocity really quickly. The booster, an R motor, only hit about 3 miles! The dart flew on, took footage, and nearly hit space. Incredible performance. This chart shows clearly how the dart maintained velocity well. At the end of the radar documentation, the dart is at about 25,000 feet and still cooking above mach 3.

Here are some fun numbers (keeping in mind I do not know the errors involved, but the listed stats are interesting to me and judged at least initially to be realistic.)

- The booster accelerated at around 35 gs, cutting out at around 4 seconds into the flight.
- On burnout, the booster saw very wild g swings including what looks like decelerations of 60, 70, and even at a few moments 100 or more gs. This is how it drops down from supersonic to zero in just a few seconds. Granted these were abnormal conditions, but even under normal flight this boxy R motor would probably have seen 20 or 30 gs deceleration anyway.
- The rocket was supersonic only about 1 second into the flight, just about 500 feet off the ground!
- By contrast, the dart was slowed down by only about 8 gs in the lower atmosphere (tending towards 1 g as drag was reduced).
- The dart staged near burnout, around 2 miles altitude. This is interesting because that means it coasted for around (or nearly) 50 miles after this!

Thanks again to Bill Claybaugh for this interesting data. I am (as are my 100 loyal daily readers) ready for similar data from the CSXT, if they would like to send it. We accept images, videos, and raw data.

Old image from the archives

This image is from about 10 years ago, but shockingly it is a the very same (and only) Graduator that I fly today. But here it had a green nose cone (still have the cone, it is interchangeable with the red one). In any event, the story behind this photo starts with the vendor recommended motors:

D12-3/150
E15-4/350
E30-4/400
F20-7/800
F21-6/700
F23-7/800
F25-9/1000
F50-9/1000
G40-10/1800
G80-13/2300

Well most of these make sense. This one rocket has flown on a good portion of this range of motors also! From memory, it has gone up on the H238, G80, G25, F50, F24, F22, E30, E16, and once, just once, on a D12-3. And that is the reason for the image above. Maybe built today, with my better and much lighter methods, a Graduator could indeed fly on a D12. But not this kit. It was simply too heavy. Ribsy was a bit nervous to say the least.

METRA Launch - 4/5/09

Today I attended a METRA launch. Visibility was good, but wind was a steady 10 - 15 mph. Despite the wind, which did eventually die down by 2:00, several dozen flights were launched. Most METRA launches feature a few very large flights, and this one was no exception. Two most notable flights were: a large (I think N) rocket to 15,000 feet, and an M skidmark that was so loud, its sound echoed off of hills and trees for miles around for a good 8 seconds.

I was only able to make 4 flights due to some very long delays on one rocket. First off was the Art Applewhite spool rocket, flying on an F39T. Obviously this is a solid amount of power for such a small rocket, and it had a pretty intense flight with the usual spinning at burnout. Recovery was good, on the range just off a drainage ditch. The very next rocket was also an Art Applewhite; an orange 24mm Cinco. The propulsion was an F12J, and the flight was very nice indeed. The rocket fell back also close down range, however it landed directly into a drainage ditch into water. The motor case was salvaged, but the rocket dissolved. Construction was paper and white glue, obviously this could not survive submersion.

The next rocket attempted was the now battle scarred Loc Graduator on an F24W-4, one of the $1 motors from Narcon. Due to some unknown problem at the pad (probably alligator clip problems), this rocket failed to ignite several times in a row, consuming an hour of flying time! Eventually it was able to fly after being moved to the low power pads. This motor gave a nice, slow flight for the heavy Graduator, but ejection was too early. Recovery was nominal on the range, no damage despite early ejection.



Finally, I chose to fly one of the 18mm cluster kits that I had created out of the educators pack of kits. For the test flight, two A8-3 motors were used. This offered a safe test of the airframe and would have ideally allowed for recovery even if only one motor was ignited. As the pictures above show, only one did burn. The rocket flew fairly true despite this, but did not get much altitude at all. The wind was a factor, and on a still day recovery and flight on one motor alone would have been ok. In this instance, ejection was just a bit too late and the rocket (with the extra unburnt mass from one A motor no less) fell and broke off a fin. The rocket can be repaired.

Sadly, because of the long Graduator delays, the 5th and final flight of the day was not made. This was to be a new attempt at flying the Viper IV with 4 D12s. This will have to wait.

Blue Scout Jr.

"The Blue Scout Junior was regarded by the USAF as the most useful of the various Blue Scout configurations. It was used between between 1962 and 1965 by the Air Force to launch suborbital scientific payloads to very high altitudes. The SLV-1B* was effectively identical to the XRM-91, and was launched seven times between July 1963 and June 1965 with magnetospheric experiments as payload. The LV-1B (also known as SLV-1B(m)) was a three-stage variant which omitted the Cetus 4th stage of XRM-91/SLV-1B. The USAF lauchned three LV-1Bs between November 1962 and December 1964 on ion engine test missions. The SLV-1C was another three stage rocket, which replaced the LV-1B's Alcor third stage by an Altair. It was used as the rocket for the MER-6A interim ERCS (Emergency Rocket Communications System) vehicle. The NASA used a three-stage Blue Scout Junior configuration (using the same stages as the LV-1B) as the RAM B."

This is one of the smallest, lightest, rockets able to place payloads into orbit. While not designed or used for this purpose, the Blue Scout Jr. was a very simple rocket (with aerodynamic and spin stabilization) of minimal size. As the amateur community continues to explore rocketry to space, it may prove possible to begin thinking about orbital flights. That is the next logical step, and as the Blue Scout demonstrated, not out of the reach of R, S, and T class motors.

Source

Sprint ABM part 3

These are just some new images of the Sprint rocket or the Spartan - Sprint system. There is also a PDF out there (check the Sprint wiki page) with lots of info, but I have yet to read it.

Narcon 2009

This weekend, I was lucky enough to attend one day of the two day National Association of Rocketry annual conference. The location was in central CT. New York city rocketry people (me and probably one other guy) are very lucky this year; LDRS will also be very close.

The host, CATO #581, was the first club with which I ever launched (starting with an F50 about 10 years ago now).

Cato Rocketry

The conference was held at the Wethersfield High School. A typical country public school: Huge and really well setup with dozens of classes, a pool, and even a greenhouse!

Only a few vendors were on hand. Many had raffles and sales. I was able to purchase 4.5 24mm F24 reloads for only $4! Obviously this is an incredible deal. (The .5 part refers to one extra propellant grain that didn't come with any other parts. Can't think of a good use for it right now.)

During the day, I attended many lectures:

Here one can see Jennifer Ash Poole leading the lecture: "Beginning Competition Rocketry."  This was a fun talk on some of the basics of competition flying (something that I have never done.)  Many NAR members are VERY serious about competition.  At one point there was a huge debate about "misfire alley" and to be honest, I had no idea what that was. 

These above images are from the next session: "Principles of Hybrid Propulsion."  Kevin O'Classen, obviously an expert in hybrids because he seldom flies any other kind of motor, gave a great introduction to hybrid motors.  The basics were indeed basic, but the talk quickly moved into specifics of safety, GSE (ground support equipment), and motor performance.  The ignition systems were particularly interesting to me because I never knew how the nitrous flow was initiated while the fuel grain was heated at the same time.  It is more complex than you may think!  The investment in GSE is pretty substantial with hybrids, but over a few years a high power flyer will begin to profit because of the lower flight costs.  Also, there is no need for the LEUP process even with M motors!  One interesting project to watch is an upcoming 2 stage hybrid flight at LDRS.  This appears to be the first of it's kind.

___---  Lunch ---___

The next talk was from CSXT team members.  "First amateur rocket to space" was given by Eric Knight, Chet Bacon, Rod Lane, and Don Skinner.  You should remember (if you are a rocketry person or a loyal reader) that the CSXT flew an S 50,150 to space in 2004.  As previously stated, there is a lack of information about all CSXT space attempts.  This matter came up during the presentation also.  Again where are the articles and detailed reports that were on hand after the OuR and RRS Boosted Dart flights?  The OuR project report was the article that got me started in the hobby.  It is really important.  Hopefully future projects will do a better job.  The SS2S already appears to be doing this.

This CSXT talk did help give new information, if informally and only in little bits.  The kind of information (and nice slideshow) that we would all want to see made public.  Say on a certain rocketry web page, perhaps Rocketry Planet for example.  Here are some little tidbits that were noteworthy:

The nose cone was part of the airframe and actually cut free by a linear shaped charge.

The rocket did not become sub-sonic until about 110,000 ft.

This was the first parachute ever deployed in space(?).

The launch crew heard the reentry sonic booms.

The booster fell off the chute around 50,000 ft.

CSXT from start to space spent at least $500,000.

The rocket hit about 8 RPS at burnout, and was very stable.

To test the electronics under spin, a large potters wheel was used.

Falconry transmitters were used for recovery (already knew this but they did stress just how good these things are for rocketry).

The rocket motor may have been only 1 or 2 sec. away from a cato due to burn through.

FAA approval was fairly easy to get; they liked a single monolithic rocket (simple = predictable.)

Always great to hear more about this historical flight.

CSXT

Next came the "Sugar Shot to Space" presentation by Robert Krech.  This was the main draw of the day for me.  Even more than CSXT, this project is fascinating.  It takes on some very substantial challenges (.82 mass fraction!) and plans to use a totally new motor design: a single motor with two burn periods.  This work, and the likely solid documentation, will be invaluable for all future space attempts.  As with CSXT, I will only list the new information that came up.  For more information, see my previous posts.

Lots of test videos for 75mm motors (static tests).

The use of white paint and later max. temp. tags to record thermal conditions.

Nose cone structure:  Silicon (cone?) ablative over kevlar honeycomb over ceramic reinforcement.

Nose cone tip:  Possible phenolic composite ablative, similar ablative on the fin tips.

Airframe at first expected to be titanium, but now may be carbon fiber gas pipe.

The burnout mass of the rocket will be on the order of 250 lbs!  .82 mass fraction!  This is a pro level mass fraction.  If anyone were to combine this efficiency with APCP, 100 miles would be a reasonable target with the same airframe.  SS2S is the biggest deal in amateur rocketry this decade.  Let's see how they finish up.

Sugar Shot to Space

Finally, I was able to attend a talk called "Materials in Sport Rocketry." Doc Damerau runs a web page that reports on some very intensive testing of many rocketry materials. Please visit this web page for more information. One shocking observation was that a 220 lbs. rated quick link carabineer failed at more than 2000 lbs!

Rocket Materials

________________________

Overall, for a small registration fee, I got lots of great lectures, 4.5 F motors for $4, and a free 24mm kit (see the Narcon logo for the kit they were giving out).  This was a great time, and obviously anyone who did not attend this year should think about next time.  Or at least come out to LDRS!

Apogalacticon and the army of the dark empire!

We all know Apogee and Perigee from rocketry work, and also those of us in the deep space camp often use the helion, astron, jove, lune... but here are a few new ones to boot. Apogalacticon is the best, and also probably the most crazy orbit you can have in this Universe.

We won (maybe for real this time)

JOINT TRA/NAR STATEMENT ON THE LAWSUIT VS BATFE

March 18, 2009

After a conference with our legal counsel, we provide the following information to our members on how to proceed in the aftermath of the favorable decision by Judge Walton in our lawsuit to eliminate the unjustified regulation of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). We cannot offer legal advice to individual members, and members should consult their own legal counsel if there are any questions about how to proceed.

First, we should assume that the judge's decision "vacating", or rendering null and void, the BATFE regulation of APCP will not take effect until the period for appeal by the BATFE has passed without their filing an appeal. This will be approximately 60 days from now.However, even if an appeal is filed, it is possible for the Court's judgment to be in effect and BATFE regulation to be nullified while the appeal is pending. We will advise you if this is this is the case.

If BATFE should appeal the decision, regardless of the fact that there is almost no credible basis for such an appeal or for the appeal to be approved by the Department of Justice, we should await the results of the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals before assuming that BATFE no longer regulates APCP in the long term. However, unless the appellate court grants the agency a "stay of judgment" (which they may request, should they appeal) final judgment will be considered in effect at the end of the 60 day period mentioned above. At that time, the Judge Walton's decision will take effect and could only be nullified by an overturn on appeal. Should the appellate court grant BATFE a stay of judgment, we will have to await the decision of the court before Judge Walton's decision would be considered final and in effect.
An appeal could take up to six months, and possibly more time. If there is no appeal, then the regulations are automatically cancelled even if BATFE chooses not to publish a notice of such cancellation.

We will keep our members advised of the status of any appeals and will let you know the exact official date on which the regulations are no longer in effect. After this official date, you will not be required to have BATFE licenses or be subject to BATFE inspection or oversight for sport rocketry operations with APCP in any quantity and should show a copy of the Court judgment to any BATFE agent who takes an opposite position.

Second, members should proceed for now on the basis that all these BATFE regulations remain in effect. Appropriate licenses are still required to buy, sell, possess, and/or store APCP until such time as the regulations are cancelled. If you have a license up for renewal between now and late May (or whatever later date may be determined by any BATFE appeal process), you will have to renew it if you wish to perform any of these transactions.
Third, once the regulations are canceled, members are reminded that high-power user certifications are still required for purchasing or using high-power motors even if BATFE licenses are not. We have a great reputation as a self-regulating group of responsible hobbyists and our future success in defending the freedom we just won back could depend on maintaining this reputation.

Fourth, this Court decision did not change the regulated status of other sport rocketry items such as black powder, some kinds of igniters, etc. To the extent that any of these items previously required licenses and magazine storage, nothing has changed. Nor does the decision affect licensing and regulation by other federal, state or local government agencies.
We thank our members for their continued patience and for their sustained moral and financial support as we have fought this long battle successfully together.


Ken Good, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association

Trip Barber, President
National Association of Rocketry


BATFE LEUP may no longer be needed in HPR rocketry, or at least in reasonable amounts.