New high power Rocket launch

[Seoul_lasers]

Superb! Definitely your best videos yet; great on board video camera views!
:gj:

Edit: It looks like those two launches at about the 2 min. mark nearly tipped the launch pad over!

That was an old pad (aerotech) and the pad was blasted into tiny pieces from the motor recoil. After this we built 2 re-enforced launchers. One with PVC and a 1/2" rail and the other with a 1" rail with a 60lb rated tripod. We did this so that we'd be able to use larger diameter rockets with 2x and 3x clusters.

I STRONGLY suggest NOT using a rod launcher with anything more than an E/F. The Aerotech launchers and hardware are crap to be honest and the slightest recoil causes the launch rods to whip badly.
I built my own launch box with a key switch, buzzer and arm and fire controls. A covered rocker switch is used to set of the engines.


The one rocket near the end of the film sounds like it went bang (@2:20)... It's ripping off the pad at over 1800Km/hr ( about/or slightly faster than your average .22LR) ~ M1.5. We figure the rocket travelled about 3.2Km ~9000ft altitude. Drift was ~400m and the rocket with some of the paint missing landed back inside the property line.

 

[paul1598419]

Well, your production values have certainly improved. I see what you mean about the rod launcher having a sideways torque at launch. Nice to see you sticking with it.

 

[Benm]

Ripping the paint of surely is a nice thing, and probably the sign to stop painting them in the first place.

It may sound silly, but paint significally adds to the weight of aircraft, both rockets and airliners. You may think nothing of it, but on a large airplane like a 747 the paintjob (weighing in at 200 to 300 kg) is heavier than having a couple of extra passengers on board.

They stopped doing it at NASA at some point too: early shuttles had a nice and white fuel tank, but later ones did not. There actually was somehting in the order of 300 kg of paint on those fuel tanks that did not serve much of a purpose.

 

[Seoul_lasers]

Ripping the paint of surely is a nice thing, and probably the sign to stop painting them in the first place.

It may sound silly, but paint significally adds to the weight of aircraft, both rockets and airliners. You may think nothing of it, but on a large airplane like a 747 the paintjob (weighing in at 200 to 300 kg) is heavier than having a couple of extra passengers on board.

They stopped doing it at NASA at some point too: early shuttles had a nice and white fuel tank, but later ones did not. There actually was something in the order of 300 kg of paint on those fuel tanks that did not serve much of a purpose.

It's important to cover the airframe with an epoxy primer as this adds structural integrity and moisture proofing. Some of these rocket bodies are made from HD coated cardboard. They require a second coat of "plastic" A few of the larger ones are fibreglass so not as important in this regard, BUT
painting also helps make the rocket bodies visible for tracking purposes.

 

[Benm]

If the paint is a structural part of the rocket that makes perfect sense.

If it is purely decorative as it was on the space shuttle fuel tank it does not.

Painting things just for cosmetic purposes can be a really wasteful thing to do. Airplanes are a good example of this, as they are often painted nicely with a good amount of livery on top too.

Visibility does not seem to be a major aspect there at all since planes come in all colours, some of which not better visible compared to plain aluminium.

For a rocket visibility might be a good thing for tracking purposes and such, but i doubt it's a safety feature: usually amateur rockets are not allowed to be launched in areas where they could interfere with commercial aviation, regardless of the paintjob on them.

 

[Seoul_lasers]

If the paint is a structural part of the rocket that makes perfect sense.

If it is purely decorative as it was on the space shuttle fuel tank it does not.

Painting things just for cosmetic purposes can be a really wasteful thing to do. Airplanes are a good example of this, as they are often painted nicely with a good amount of livery on top too.

Visibility does not seem to be a major aspect there at all since planes come in all colours, some of which not better visible compared to plain aluminium.

For a rocket visibility might be a good thing for tracking purposes and such, but i doubt it's a safety feature: usually amateur rockets are not allowed to be launched in areas where they could interfere with commercial aviation, regardless of the paintjob on them.

True, but the brighter colours make the rocket easily tracked by spotters on the ground. The rule in Canada with amature rocketry is that you need to be at least 20KM from an airport. Surprisingly our laws don't suggest a maximum ceiling for rockets like the ones in the US do but they do regulate based on n/Sec for individual engines. We can get away with clustering multiple engines for higher total impulse values.

 

[Benm]

Yeah, that's actually quite odd since 20 km is not -that far- from an airport and you could expect airplanes far below cruising altitude at that range... certainly if they have to fly a holding pattern due to a busy runway, or queue to approach or something like that.

I guess the chance of randomly hitting an airplane are very small, but if you can use as many stages as you wish you can certainly operate at the same altitude.

Given the concept that you can use as many motors at once, and build as many stages as you want, you could make it to orbit using amateur rocket motors. It may take a huge number of them to do it, but in theory it's possible.

Practically it may be a fairly idiotic design where you start with a first stage of a million motors, then 100.000 and so on until you have one final motor that actually kicks a small payload into orbit.

Doing so would probably be much more expensive than booking the payload onto a commercial launch system, but also the coolest thing ever.

 

[Seoul_lasers]

Yeah, that's actually quite odd since 20 km is not -that far- from an airport and you could expect airplanes far below cruising altitude at that range... certainly if they have to fly a holding pattern due to a busy runway, or queue to approach or something like that.

I guess the chance of randomly hitting an airplane are very small, but if you can use as many stages as you wish you can certainly operate at the same altitude.

Given the concept that you can use as many motors at once, and build as many stages as you want, you could make it to orbit using amateur rocket motors. It may take a huge number of them to do it, but in theory it's possible.

Practically it may be a fairly idiotic design where you start with a first stage of a million motors, then 100.000 and so on until you have one final motor that actually kicks a small payload into orbit.

Doing so would probably be much more expensive than booking the payload onto a commercial launch system, but also the coolest thing ever.

- Well our laws are a bit different from the ones in the US. US laws class some of the larger reloadable Gs as Level 1 due to their thrust capabilities.

- We have a dual regulation for rocketry. Transport Canada/ Energy mines have general rocket motor requirements and do not explicitly state total n/sec maximum for clusters as this is not how the legislation is written. Legislation defines the limit only on single motors. However! CAR (Canadian association of rocketry self polices and enforces their own interpretation of the legal requirements and uses a 160-320n/sec total maximum for clusters.)

I should have stated this part earlier.

 

[Seoul_lasers]

Just another test launch today. This rocket is a 3" diameter rocket (cluster).
Takes up to 2 x H's. This is built on a 3" dia loc-precision kit. It's very back heavy and needs big engines to get it moving.

 

[CurtisOliver]

:drool: Amazing Seoul. :beer:
Can't wait to see a video of that one blasting off.

 

[Seoul_lasers]

:drool: Amazing Seoul. :beer:
Can't wait to see a video of that one blasting off.

Today this rocket and 3 others lifted off all on G's. All these rockets are clustered 2s-3s and one of the larger rockets was a 4 cluster. All the rockets used G125s or G80NT engines.

We had press down at the field (gravel pit) getting pictures of these things blasting off. More pics coming soon!

:angel: :evil:

 

[paul1598419]

Looks great, SL. I know people who have done this hobby since the 1960s, so it is not a new thing. I got all the explosives out of my system in my early teens, so I never pursued this hobby myself. Looking forward to the next videos.

 

[CurtisOliver]

Thanks Seoul. Look forward to seeing them. :beer:

 

[Seoul_lasers]

Thanks Seoul. Look forward to seeing them. :beer:

Will post as soon as I get them. :beer:

Still waiting for pics of the launch from last week, Monday.

 

[Seoul_lasers]

Some pretty big news coming about the applied technology program and rocketry this year.

A major upgrade is coming to the rocketry program in the form of company sponsors. (being careful not to divulge too much information)
CBC has got wind of our program and will likely be sending out a TV crew to do a TV show spot in October, probably followed by other news agencies. The plan could still change, and any lunch will be weather dependant.... naturally. Hoping for decent weather in October.
One of our local universities will also be joining our launch on the day of filming. The local university has invited us out for one of their launches at the white sands testing facility sometime next year.

This Applied technology rocketry program is the only one of it's kind in Canada.

Stay tuned for more news.

 

[CurtisOliver]

Excellent Seoul_lasers! Please keep us informed.