Better still, will the recovery system work? Questions I won't know until I give it a shot...


So, we have a club night launch coming up this weekend. I have been planning on building a rocket to launch at night but stuck on design, and more importantly LED's. I did find a number of LED's in the kids toys, but nothing was "great". So, strolling by the local Pep Boys, I picked up these little things that run off 12v.


I will say a number of mistakes on this one, mostly because I was quite busy with the honey-do-list and time caught up on me. So, the last week, I found myself with a bunch of parts, little time and rocket to be completed by this weekend... Quite proud of some aspects of the build, but rushing it posed issues with the power system design since I bought the batteries after I actually tested what type of battery design I would use. Not happy with how it stores, but beats the alternative. I have loaded power, chute and wadding, then simulated the recovery system by a short quick blow through the engine mount. Unconventional I know, likely not a good test, but it did show me the initial design most certainly would not work. A few changes and I am ready to try the real thing.


So, this is a cross between a Big Bertha, a Blue Ninja and extra pieces parts. I used the engine mount assembly/fins from the Blue Ninja since I expected weight to climb; so this can use D12-3. Can't see even attempting a C12-3; I want this up in the air for the best chance of success; or a nice deep core sample...



I also added a BT50 tube within the Bertha Tube. I wanted some space to deal with the wires; and that would also allow a nice smooth transition for the recovery system without dealing with said wires. So, I made a couple centering rings, then put epoxy around the tube at the base and attached directly to the top of the engine mount. I cut it about 1 5/8" below the top of the Bertha tube as to allow space for the nosecone, etc. So, pretty happy with that aspect. Nice and light as well.


To finish up, here is where most mistakes occurred... Only have a few days left, and BTW, also getting the boat ready for a trip to the lake this week with the kids since they are on spring break. So, I primed and painted the same day. Not astonishing and not a complex scheme, but I also started to work on the wiring, good and well knowing the paint would not be cured and was quite delicate. So, some mars from not paying attention to protect the soft paint, but also a couple mistake in trying to hot glue the switch in, only to find the side filled up with hot glue rendering the switch useless. So, I had to remove it, and repair it, causing a little more damage. So, the time sneaking up on me, I rushed many things I normally would have waited the appropriate time, including the design. I may get a little wax and touch it up...


I also added some reflective tape just in case the lights fail at any point. I still may add more, but I kinda like it simple...


Anyway, this is not my last nighttime launch type rocket. I think I will do it again, taking what I have learned to get a little more beef in the motor and spending the appropriate time on it. I would like to buld the LED's myself as well and get the nosecone involved... All it takes is time and money...


Wish me luck!!!

Attached Thumbnails

         

That rocket looks eerily like the UFO in the famous 1965 Exeter, New Hampshire case (seen at close range by a terrified 18 year-old who went to the local police station after having run to get away from it, then later witnessed again by him as well as by two police officers, one of whom drove him to the field where he first sighted it, see: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...373608f42b2bb24 ).

Regarding your rocket's construction and paint scheme imperfections, keep in mind that since it's a night-flying bird, no one will notice them unless they are large and obvious--the LED array is what they will "Ooh!" and "Aah!" over. If you run out of time to fix the blemishes before its first public outing (they can be fixed later), just keep the rocket under wraps (perhaps sheets of black fabric [or sheets of black plastic cut from a trash bag]) to create & preserve an "air of mystery" about it before flying it at the night launch meet.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

Wow, I do not recall that story. Read up on it and it is pretty cool... I'm not a UFO (alien) guy, but clearly something happened and the object was "unidentified"... As with the ongoing technology race, there is no way the military would have admitted to it being ours as similar with Stealth sightings, etc. At the same time, I find it hard to believe any of our people would screw around with civilians during testing/drills... Things that make you go hmmm.

Hey BPRescue that rocket looks very cool! I hope the night flight goes well. I can't imagine you not being able to find it.

__________________
I plan ahead that way I don't have to do anything right now.

Oh by the way, I'm not here just for the "olde" rocket discussions.

You're welcome. "Filtered" UFO reports (the ones that have been extensively scientifically investigated and remain "unknowns") are clearly data, but data on *what*, we just don't know. There very probably isn't just *one* cause behind all of them. The ETH (Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis) is a popular one, and it might be the correct explanation for some sightings (particularly the maneuvering green fireballs that appeared *only* over our nuclear research laboratories in the 1950s and were witnessed by the nuclear scientists who worked at them; they were also seen by the astronomers Dr. Lincoln La Paz [a meteorite expert] and Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the [now-dwarf] planet Pluto).

The fireballs' emission spectra and fragments that Dr. La Paz managed to recover showed that the fireballs were created by burning copper, which--along with their sudden stops and maneuvers as well as their being restricted solely to the areas over the nuclear research facilities--ruled them out as being natural meteorites. The scientists conjectured that they were self-consuming probes equipped with onboard radiation detectors that were projected into our atmosphere by *someone* (not necessarily extraterrestrials, although they didn't think the Soviet Union possessed such capabilities) in order to determine the exact locations and radiation output levels of our nuclear research laboratories.

The early fireballs flew in horizontal paths, often in formations of several objects, while the later fireballs were mostly seen to be on downward vertical trajectories toward the nuclear facilities. This behavior is precisely what would be expected of probes carrying gamma ray detectors, since gamma rays cannot be focused to form images of their sources as visible light, ultraviolet light, and even X-Rays (with grazing-incidence mirrors) can. A formation of probes carrying gamma ray detectors could, by triangulation, determine the locations of gamma ray sources on the ground, which would allow later probes to be targeted to descend directly toward the gamma ray sources to collect more detailed radiation data at closer range.

The objects' copper composition and their maneuvering capabilities also provide a clue to how they could have been propelled. Magneto-HydroDynamic (MHD) propulsion systems for submarines and surface vessels have been successfully tested as far back as the 1960s. By using inductors and electromagnets, the electrically-conductive seawater can be made to flow through a duct to provide propulsion (this method of moving fluids was even investigated as a possible artificial heart).

By exciting the air molecules around an aircraft with microwaves to create an electrically-conductive cold plasma, the same principle can be used to provide both lift and propulsion, which is called MAD (Magneto-AeroDynamic propulsion. A MAD drive would permit even a very un-aerodynamic craft to fly at supersonic or even hypersonic velocities without creating a sonic boom because the drive system's field would part the air well ahead of the vehicle. The first MAD research, in the 1960s, involved placing electromagnets inside simulated ICBM re-entry vehicles in hypersonic wind tunnel tests, and the tests showed that the plasma sheath around a re-entry vehicle could be controlled electromagnetically.

In a self-consuming "green fireball" probe, the burning copper (ignited by air compression & friction during the high-velocity atmospheric entry) would have provided the plasma for its MAD propulsion system. Given the brief lifetimes of the green fireballs (usually less than a minute), high-capacity batteries could have provided sufficient electrical power for their propulsion systems.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

Nothing cooler than creating your own rocket out of pieces parts and it actually working... Well, maybe designing your own and it actually working - that may be soon...

Had the test flight last night. It flew strait and recovery system deployed perfectly. LED's were pretty darn cool and there was NO problem finding the rocket. Pretty sure I could spot it a mile away... I tested a dusk, so it was not quite dark yet. I wanted to ensure I had the best chance of finding it in case the LED's failed...

Also, still have to remember long rockets head into the wind. I put an angle on the launch rod since there was a little bit of wind. Had a bit of a long arch...

In all, happy the darn thing will actually work for the launch.

As similar to speaking with my boss who is a scientist turned CEO, some of you guys on here remind me that I am not the sharpest tack in the box... Thats not a negative comment BTW... Just Impressive...

I very much appreciate your kind compliment. However, what a simple plow horse like myself has done, you can do also. "Sharpness" consists of having a good memory (although a good library [and today, the internet] can substitute for it, which I've fortunately discovered as I get older) and an ability to see connections between seemingly unrelated subjects. (This can be learned, and it doesn't require one to be a fast thinker, as I certainly am not one.) I'd also add a third thing--*not* being afraid to examine subjects that most people treat with ridicule.

[G. Harry Stine gives an example of seeing the connection between two seemingly unrelated subjects in his "Handbook of Model Rocketry." When the WAC Corporal sounding rocket was developed in the mid-1940s, some aerodynamics experts didn't believe that the three-finned rocket would be stable in flight--all previous rockets and bombs had had four fins. Dr. Frank Malina, who designed the WAC Corporal, pointed out that arrows with three fins--fletching feathers--had been flying stably for centuries!]

I cannot say with 100% certainty that genuine UFOs (the ones that remain "unknowns" after extensive scientific investigation) are extraterrestrial spacecraft, but the scientific investigation reports that have been made on them (many of which are little-known to the general public, although they aren't secret or hidden) do suggest that some of them might very well be vehicles from elsewhere. While there is a lot of sensationalistic, "crank," and crackpot literature on the subject of UFOs, there are also scholarly works on the subject (please see below).

In addition to Dr. J. Allen Hynek's excellent books, the two books (listed below) that made me really stand up and notice are by NACA (and later NASA) engineer Paul R. Hill (who had two UFO sightings himself) and nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman (who has never seen a UFO but became convinced of their reality after examining the scientific reports on them.) Friedman has also studied classified *human* propulsion research work (during his work on various classified nuclear-powered aircraft projects and unclassified nuclear rocket projects in the 1960s) which indicated that UFO-type performance (using MAD [Magneto-AeroDynamic] propulsion systems) is feasible using known physics, although (in the 1960s) the requirements for MAD-powered aircraft taxed then-current engineering capabilities because they require very lightweight but strong airframe materials, super-conducting electromagnets, and lightweight but powerful electrical power sources with power/mass ratios similar to that of today's Russian "Topaz" satellite nuclear reactors. (His web site http://www.stantonfriedman.com/ has interesting articles on MAD propulsion and many other UFO-related subjects.) These two books are:

[1] "Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis" by Paul R. Hill (see: http://www.amazon.com/Unconventiona...s/dp/1571740279 [also available from AbeBooks.com www.abebooks.com ])

[2] "Flying Saucers & Science" by Stanton Friedman (see: http://www.shop.stantonfriedman.com/ [also available from AbeBooks.com www.abebooks.com ])

I hope this information will be helpful.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

Had the night launch last weekend at the club. Had a lot of people asking me about how I did this, and it was the hit of the low power side. Saw a lot of people with glow sticks, or LED’s from toys and they were not nearly as bright as this one. You could see it very well all the way up, to apogee and on the way down as well; but also had no problem in terms of seeing it on the ground for recovery. Even the range director was impressed and asked a number of questions which boosted the old ego a bit. They did launch a few of the low power rockets before my initial launch and it was cool to hear the crowd ooh and aww, then clap when mine launched. At least until the real guys with mid power hit the pad and one just could not contend with the led power, and engines at night. So, after that, it was a “been there done that” when I launched, but the kids still loved it and beamed with pride when they walked back to the crowd holding the rocket. Overall there was lots of interest and I was quite happy with my first design.

I did see some of the mid power guys play with fiber optics as well, and still others who through led’s in likely otherwise older rockets, though there was really no structure to their design and they did not pay much attention to the painting scheme. To me it seems like with a little extra effort, they could make an incredible rocket. There were a couple however that were pretty darn awesome; they clearly took time with their lighting and likely programmed their own light patterns; using clear body tubes and or payload bays; ver cool.

I did have a mishap, that bums me out. The rocket held up quite well, however you may recall I did use the fins and engine assembly from a Blue Ninja and D12-3’s, with the main body being a Bertha tube. There is no doubt it was considerably heavier than the original Ninja, and the fins are a bit thin. A corner did break off the fin on the 3rd recovery, and some of my fillets did begin to separate from the fin per flexing of said fin on impact. Not bad, but you can see small separation. So, the corner needs repair even though the rocket still fly’s fine. Anyone ever repair plastic fins, or am I in trouble? I used CA to glue them and epoxy to fillet, so pretty sure I am not going to be able to replace it even if I ground it down. Reality is I am not happy with the battery placement, or ability to change out quickly, so with the extra attention I have to take in prepping the recovery, I may just rebuild it.

Anyway, I am not done and already thinking of a new design for another night rocket; potentially working up to an Executioner for the base; and may or may not upgrade the engine. I will use laminated paper over balsa fins, if not plywood and will stay away from plastic though per the weight and fragility ( thought it would be stronger, but apparently not). Additionally, the broken plastic fin on my rocket may be my fault as I did not consider bumping up the Ninja’s 18” chute to a larger version. I think the added weight likely caused the rocket to hit the ground a bit faster/harder than to what it was designed…


In closing, the kids really loved this launch and their interest peaks well beyond the park scenario where it is typically just us launching. In fact, last night my 4 year old son slept with one of his rockets… I did remove it once he fell asleep and put it on his table since I was in fear of the nosecone coming off with the danger of the recovery system getting wrapped around his neck. Anyway, not sure how soon kids usually pick this stuff up, but I let him prep the rocket completely (with supervision), wadding, chute, engine, igniter, plug, everything… He really loves it…

First of all great project! It sounds like it was a success from start to finish. If at the end of the day your kids had fun and your 4 year old went to sleep with a rocket beside him you done good!

Regarding the chipped fin. My 2-cents - I had a good corner piece come off of my Aerotech Warthog last year and I used CA to glue it back on. It's flown multiple times since then without an issue.

__________________
I plan ahead that way I don't have to do anything right now.

Oh by the way, I'm not here just for the "olde" rocket discussions.