Jump to content


Photo

Awesome Amateur Rocket Launch

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 lightfever

lightfever

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Macomb Michigan

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:16 PM

Title says it all, check it out here.

#2 Mary B

Mary B

    Vendor - Echo Astronomy and Electronics

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3067
  • Joined: 21 May 2010
  • Loc: Minnesota

Posted 10 October 2011 - 05:32 PM

Sweet!

#3 Alex_M

Alex_M

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2011

Posted 10 October 2011 - 05:38 PM

Awesome!

#4 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • -----
  • Posts: 6879
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:50 PM

another

http://www.youtube.c...vDqoxMUroA&NR=1

-drl

#5 Shadowalker

Shadowalker

    Apocaloptimist

  • *****
  • Posts: 10867
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2004
  • Loc: Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, USA

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:53 PM

I love rockets...

#6 star drop

star drop

    contra contrail

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 70258
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Snow Plop, WNY

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:50 PM

That is so cool!

#7 jchaller

jchaller

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1350
  • Joined: 29 May 2008
  • Loc: Tenino, WA.

Posted 11 October 2011 - 12:47 AM

Gotta love rockets.

Attached Files



#8 lightfever

lightfever

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Macomb Michigan

Posted 11 October 2011 - 09:06 AM

It would be interesting to know what that launch cost and if they made the solid motor themselves.

#9 KWB

KWB

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16312
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.5400 feet

Posted 11 October 2011 - 11:09 AM

You beat me to the punch,Mark. :waytogo:

I'd love to know what the total tab was for the design, materials and assembly,plus the launch and what the exact composition of the propellent that was used. My guess is it wasn't cheap.

Incredible. :jump:

#10 EJN

EJN

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2130
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: 53 miles west of Venus

Posted 11 October 2011 - 12:26 PM

Propellant is Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP)
in a rubber binder with 8% metal powder using a Fin-O-Cyl
grain configuration.

There is a website with construction details here.

#11 ColoHank

ColoHank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2293
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007
  • Loc: western Colorado

Posted 11 October 2011 - 03:51 PM

I'm amazed how smooth the footage suggests the launch was, with no evidence of vibration or shuddering. Was it because the camera was that well isolated, or was the rocket really that steady?

#12 lightfever

lightfever

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Macomb Michigan

Posted 11 October 2011 - 04:05 PM

Do those cameras have image stabilization?

#13 Shadowalker

Shadowalker

    Apocaloptimist

  • *****
  • Posts: 10867
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2004
  • Loc: Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, USA

Posted 11 October 2011 - 06:27 PM

Don't know about the camera, but I do know all rockets vibrate - a lot. Now that you mention it, Hank, I'm surprised at the stability of the image. The ascent video on shuttle, Atlas 5 and Delta 4 are similarly stable. I'm guessing they do use image stabilization. Must mean consumer grade video has pretty sophisticated stuff in order for this rocket to have such good video.

#14 groz

groz

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2007
  • Loc: Campbell River, BC

Posted 11 October 2011 - 06:35 PM

Don't know about the camera, but I do know all rockets vibrate - a lot.


I know that a liquid fueled rocket, with all the pumps and gizmos that accompany liquid fuel, will have a lot of vibration. It's especially noticeable when thrust/weight ratios are just slightly over 1, so acceleration is rather slow in the early state of liftoff. But, will an all solid fuel system, with no moving parts, and a thrust/weight ratio that start at 12.5, rapidly increases to 22 only 8 seconds later, have that much vibration?

Probably not......

#15 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15446
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 11 October 2011 - 06:59 PM

This was much better than the National Geographic Channel program "HOW HARD CAN IT BE? when they tried their hand at a "rocket to reach the edge of space" (it didn't). It was sad to see one of these "engineers" on that program try to light a clustered model rocket using black powder!

#16 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 22173
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 11 October 2011 - 08:24 PM

Don't know about the camera, but I do know all rockets vibrate - a lot.


I know that a liquid fueled rocket, with all the pumps and gizmos that accompany liquid fuel, will have a lot of vibration. It's especially noticeable when thrust/weight ratios are just slightly over 1, so acceleration is rather slow in the early state of liftoff. But, will an all solid fuel system, with no moving parts, and a thrust/weight ratio that start at 12.5, rapidly increases to 22 only 8 seconds later, have that much vibration?

Probably not......


I'm pretty sure that the combustion process in a solid fuel motor provides all kinds of vibration sources. I don't think the fuel mixture and internal packing can possibly be homogeneous enough to prevent a tremendous amount of chaos in the combustion chamber.

#17 Shadowalker

Shadowalker

    Apocaloptimist

  • *****
  • Posts: 10867
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2004
  • Loc: Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, USA

Posted 11 October 2011 - 08:53 PM

Actually, solids vibrate a lot more than liquids. It's not the pipes, valves and fluid flow, it's the combustion rate. In a solid there is a huge area burning at any one time. There are local areas that burn faster than others. This produces pressures that are non-homogeneous, resulting in forces that are varying. All of which contributes to uneven acceleration and vibration.

Liquid fueled rockets have a much more even burn rate.

I'm not saying liquids are better. Just that solids provide a more interesting ride ;)

#18 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • -----
  • Posts: 6879
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 11 October 2011 - 08:57 PM

There was one bug in his launch - something MELTED from friction and partially covered the camera lens!

You know you've got a fast rocket when the FRONT end melts!

-drl

#19 lightfever

lightfever

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Macomb Michigan

Posted 11 October 2011 - 09:02 PM

There was one bug in his launch - something MELTED from friction and partially covered the camera lens!

You know you've got a fast rocket when the FRONT end melts!

-drl


Reading the website it appears it was a deflector that was planned on being machined from aluminum but was made from plastic because of time constraints.

Yeah, your rocket is really moving when you can melt things. :)

#20 Achernar

Achernar

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9013
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA

Posted 11 October 2011 - 09:19 PM

Not necessarily, a pressure fed rocket would have no pumps at all, just two propellant tanks, a pressure bottle or bottles charged with helium, nitrogen or some other gas, a valve and regulator for the pressure bottles, two valves and the engine itself. Liquid fueled rockets don't vibrate nearly as much as solid fueled rockets do, even the ones that burn some of the fuel in turbines to drive super powerful turbopumps vibrate far less than a solid fueled rocket. They force the propellants into the engines while the turbines that drive them vent their exhaust through the engines at the same time for maximum thrust. This was how the main engines of the Space Shuttle orbiter functioned, and once the SRB's were cut loose the ride smoothed out dramatically for the astronauts in spite of the fact each turbo pump spun much faster than a jet engine at full thrust.

Taras

#21 KWB

KWB

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16312
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.5400 feet

Posted 11 October 2011 - 10:42 PM

Liquid fueled rockets can be shut down,maybe not on the "shoestring budget" of this design but the solid fuel rascals can't AFAIK. I'm still stunned this was the propulsion system chosen,and yes I'd vote for a very sophisticated image stabilization system used,and maybe not so-consumer grade.

Maybe I didn't look hard enough but I only saw 150 pounds of propellent used,but not the specific type.

#22 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • -----
  • Posts: 6879
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 11 October 2011 - 10:49 PM

Also amazing is that the rocket, going as fast as it was, did not spin about its axis at power-drill speeds. This testifies to extremely accurate machining of the chamber and the guidance fins.

-drl

#23 KWB

KWB

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16312
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.5400 feet

Posted 11 October 2011 - 11:55 PM

Also amazing is that the rocket, going as fast as it was, did not spin about its axis at power-drill speeds. This testifies to extremely accurate machining of the chamber and the guidance fins.

-drl

:ubetcha: And in my mind testifies to the this overall project as being one in having a very good overall master plan-as in funding and in creative genius.
:bow:

#24 Shadowalker

Shadowalker

    Apocaloptimist

  • *****
  • Posts: 10867
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2004
  • Loc: Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, USA

Posted 12 October 2011 - 08:42 AM

Liquid fueled rockets can be shut down,maybe not on the "shoestring budget" of this design but the solid fuel rascals can't AFAIK. I'm still stunned this was the propulsion system chosen,and yes I'd vote for a very sophisticated image stabilization system used,and maybe not so-consumer grade.

Maybe I didn't look hard enough but I only saw 150 pounds of propellent used,but not the specific type.


Kenny, there is another type of rocket motor that has much of the simplicity of solids, but the control of liquids. The Hybrid Rocket Motor.

They use a solid core of fuel, usually butyl rubber and pumped or pressure fed oxidizer at the front end. It can be throttled and shut down by controlling the oxidizer valve. Also, the solid fuel isn't nearly as dangerous as the Ammomium perchlorate/Powdered aluminum mix in true solids.

Here is a video of a 10,000 lb thrust hybrid we tested at Stennis Space Center some years back. Later, we tested a 250,000 lb thrust motor built by Lockheed.

Hybrids were all the rage for a while, but nobody seems to have picked up on them for an operational rocket.

#25 Scott Horstman

Scott Horstman

    Vendor - Backyard Observatories

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 14584
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Here, There and Everywhere

Posted 12 October 2011 - 08:42 AM

Awesome video, thanks for posting. I hope they qualify for the 5k. They certainly deserve it.

Reminded me of the Top Gear space shuttle launch, which had a slightly different outcome.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics