Anyone else seen this? Amateur rocket fired into space

t sr wrote:
Is this significant at all?

Not really.

well, how many backyard rocket scientists have ever duplicated the feat?

This is significant. Theoretically its very easy to design and make a
solid rocket engine in your grarage. It doesn't cost much either.

But practically, it's another matter.

Sure, the payload here achived less than ten percent of the energy
needed for orbit. But with engine design and manufacturing techniques
worked out, half of the difficulty of reaching orbit is overcome.

Under half of one percent of that needed.
(currently designing regeneratively cooled bipropellant engines, and
star-trackers for a 4-stage 1 kilo launcher to be built in the garage)


Building on this for an amature satallite launch system now requires
three more stages and better guidance.

Under half of one percent of that needed.
(currently designing regeneratively cooled bipropellant engines, and
star-trackers for a 4-stage 1 kilo launcher to be built in the garage)


I guess we know what keeps you out of the bars

Seriously though, a satallite launching system is within the grasp of
amatures, and for a cost in time and money that is similiar many
hobbies. I know lots of people who spend $50K on stupid ski boats and
a truck to haul it around.

I have been working on some simulation software to model and optimize
the smallest launcher that can deliver a 1-10Kg load to orbit with
'garage' technology. Five years ago we didn't have linux capable pc's
the size of candybars.

tsr

t sr wrote:

Under half of one percent of that needed.
(currently designing regeneratively cooled bipropellant engines, and
star-trackers for a 4-stage 1 kilo launcher to be built in the garage)


I guess we know what keeps you out of the bars

Seriously though, a satallite launching system is within the grasp of
amatures, and for a cost in time and money that is similiar many
hobbies. I know lots of people who spend $50K on stupid ski boats and
a truck to haul it around.

I agree.

I have been working on some simulation software to model and optimize
the smallest launcher that can deliver a 1-10Kg load to orbit with
'garage' technology. Five years ago we didn't have linux capable pc's
the size of candybars.

My current philosophy is to accellerate to mach 1 at 1.4G or so, hold
at mach 1 until the dynamic pressure drops below 1G, before accellerating
hard until burnout, then coast for a while before stage seperation to
get the dynamic pressure nice and low at staging.

(for small rockets, trying to accellerate all the way up just
leads to wasting fuel)

I've been wondering about recovery of this first stage too.
Parafoil, GPS, and a few servos...

Then stage often till orbit, with each stage being little more
than a couple of tanks and an engine, with all the smarts being
on top.

My current philosophy is to accellerate to mach 1 at 1.4G or so, hold
at mach 1 until the dynamic pressure drops below 1G, before accellerating
hard until burnout, then coast for a while before stage seperation to
get the dynamic pressure nice and low at staging.

Yes, these are the things I'm tinkering with in my simulations.

Is mach 1 the best place to cruse? Depending on your aerodynamics the
Cd might drop dramatically on either side of mach 1.


(for small rockets, trying to accellerate all the way up just
leads to wasting fuel)
I've been wondering about recovery of this first stage too.
Parafoil, GPS, and a few servos...

Automated, guided stage return? Probably worth it only if componants
are reusable.

Then stage often till orbit, with each stage being little more
than a couple of tanks and an engine, with all the smarts being
on top.

Steering the rocket is still my biggest unknown. I read about a
laockmart (i think) patent for fin design a while back; four fins,
more like odd shaped aerobrakes, operating in combinations to produce
pitch, yaw, spin R, spin L (my memory is fuzzy here). These could be
near the top of the rocket for the first several stages, and maby on
the final stage nozzle. Just a thought.

t sr wrote:
My current philosophy is to accellerate to mach 1 at 1.4G or so, hold
at mach 1 until the dynamic pressure drops below 1G, before accellerating
hard until burnout, then coast for a while before stage seperation to
get the dynamic pressure nice and low at staging.

Yes, these are the things I'm tinkering with in my simulations.

Is mach 1 the best place to cruse? Depending on your aerodynamics the
Cd might drop dramatically on either side of mach 1.

Oops, I was assuming slightl under.
..83 seems like a nice choice. Boeing certainly seem to think so.


(for small rockets, trying to accellerate all the way up just
leads to wasting fuel)
I've been wondering about recovery of this first stage too.
Parafoil, GPS, and a few servos...

Automated, guided stage return? Probably worth it only if componants
are reusable.

Probbaly.

Then stage often till orbit, with each stage being little more
than a couple of tanks and an engine, with all the smarts being
on top.

Steering the rocket is still my biggest unknown. I read about a
laockmart (i think) patent for fin design a while back; four fins,
more like odd shaped aerobrakes, operating in combinations to produce
pitch, yaw, spin R, spin L (my memory is fuzzy here). These could be
near the top of the rocket for the first several stages, and maby on
the final stage nozzle. Just a thought.

I don't like the thought of aerobrakes.
My initial design is 'simply' an assymetrical nozzle extension.
This rotates to vector the thrust in a desired direction, or spins
to have no effect.
Flow seperation is an issue, and it'll stop working over a given
pressure.
But as I'm going up, not down, ...

The parachute recovery comes more from ease of initial testing.
All stages will be able to take off under their own power, and
self-recover using a dummy next stage placed on top with a parachute in.
If I can, I'd like to be able to retain at least some of this ability
for real launches.
The vision of a failed launch simply staging very early and simultaneously,
with all the working bits flying back down is a nice one.
Perhaps not possible, but nice.