Space: The ultimate in higher

Discussions on high/extreme altitude and mach busting rockets.

Moderator: Moderators

hybridhighflyer
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Sunshine Coast Queensland

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby hybridhighflyer » Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:12 am

For me the answer is simple.

New Zealand or USA. Australia is just too hard for what we are trying to achieve.

I believe you could launch there for a lot of paperwork and about $2000. Dont quote me on that though.

I believe also where the item is constructed comes into matter (in Australia at least) so the government isnt happy for you to build a space rocket in your back yard and ship it through customs.

I have already had a few issues trying to ship "rocket items" to Australia. I must admit never had items "sending".

A flight to NZ isnt much and you could always get someone there to let you use their workshop.

I believe someone doing this is best done as a team and not just 1 person. As long as it flies the Australian flag I for one would be in it. I have already saved I believe almost $15000 towards a project like this.

I am a advocate for "Anything is possible" so though unrealaistic I will never stop trying.

Thanks

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:08 pm

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.... When you think about it, a rocket doesn't have to be too big to be put into space. I mean look at the early sounding rockets and you'll realise what I mean. If you're not concerned with taking a payload with you and you use a hybrid (N2O/Paraffin Wax) you could get away with something roughly 18cm wide and 500cm tall. Not joking, the WAC Corporal went to 400km on NFA/Alcohol and a N2O Paraffin Wax motor could probably get similar performance.
The WAC was a lot larger (30cm wide, 7.3m tall) but then again an extra 300km is a lot of additional DV.
Also, technology has improved a lot since then. Lighter electronics and structural materials makes a difference. Although if you were to do a space shot it would have to be with homemade propulsion.
What would be the required total impulse you think? R, S or T? I think an S would be able to do it, maybe a 100% R with a full carbon composite structure and a seriously well made motor.

$15,000 would probably be able to pay for the motor. I'm guessing the rocket would cost an extra $15,000.
$30,000 in total. Anyone in? :D

Don't hold me against any of that though, I literally was just coming up with all that on the fly. Although reading over it, it doesn't sound overly optimistic.
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:21 pm

If you devise a launch system from a high altitude balloon then the rocket can be made a hell of a lot smaller... and cheaper too, although launch procedures and recovery would be a bitch.
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---

Lister
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 967
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 5:36 pm
Location: Bendigo, Victoria

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby Lister » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:25 pm

Launch and recovery wouldnt be a problem from a balloon. Why not go for a 2 stage rocket instead and save more weight at higher altitudes and reduce costs by not having to have a single motor.

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:51 am

If you launched a two stage rocket from a balloon, you would effectively have a three stage rocket and that would increase the chance of a failure drastically. Plus, if you're using a hybrid motor staging would be a hard task. I think one stage either launched via balloon or from the ground would be the best way to do it. Much simpler.

Also 2 motors would cost more then one big one as you need 2 nozzles, 2 set of tanks, 2 motor casings. For a small rocket, wouldn't it be more mass effective to use 1 motor? I don't know, I'm probably wrong.
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:48 am

Was thinking about it.... The GoFast rocket used a 431,492Ns (S) solid propellant motor loaded with 196kg of propellant.... Carbon Fibre has a density roughly 3/5 of aluminium... The rocket weighed 154kg empty, so assuming 4kg of electronics and such, that's 150kg of aluminium. If you made the rocket the same size, and carbon fibre is 3/5 as dense as the aluminium they used (I think it's right, from memory...) then the rocket would have a total mass of 94kg.

That would give you a mass fraction of 3.2 as opposed to 2.27. The DV equation means that the rocket would require 115kg of fuel to reach the same altitude... That's 81kg less... I feel like I might have missed something as maths isn't my strong point but I'll go with that. I found here http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/en/organisatio ... ts/solids/ that the density of APCP is around 1760kg/m3... so here is a summary of the two launch vehicles:

GOFAST ROCKET:
Structural Material: Aluminum
Dry Mass: 154kg
Fuelled Mass: 350kg
Propellant Mass: 196kg
Volume of Propellant: 0.11m3
DV (230s ISP): 1890m/s
Diameter: 25cm
Height: 4.45m
Total Rocket Volume (Assuming uniform cylinder shape, obviously inaccurate): 0.22m3

AUZZIE ROCKET:
Structural Material: Carbon Fibre
Dry Mass: 94kg
Fuelled Mass: 205kg
Propellant Mass: 115kg
Volume of Propellant: 0.065m3
DV (230s ISP): 1895m/s
Diameter: 20cm
Height: 4m
Total Rocket Volume (Assuming uniform cylinder shape, and assuming that we want half of the volume to be fuel): 0.13m3

Dry mass of the auzzie rocket would actually be smaller, but when I did the calculations I got 29kg and that doesn't sound right. This maths is all just ballpark estimates, it could be drastically wrong. Point is that even launching from the ground with APCP propellant a CF rocket would only need to be 20cm wide by 4m tall (Don't hold me against that though).

Launching from a balloon at 30km up I would imagine the rocket could be a lot smaller. After all, drag is much smaller that high up and you then only have to cover 70km not 100km.

Anyways just trying to point out it might be more doable then we think... that is the rocket, not the legal stuff.
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:28 am

Sorry for triple posting, but just needed to point out:
Take this with a grain of salt seeing as I'm using OpenRocket, but using an O25,000 launched at 30km (Balloon Launched) I get 114km with all fibreglass, although only with an 'other components' mass total of 2.5kg, with 5.5kg you get 96km. Even if that's off by 35km, it still means with an air launched P motor you can get to space.

Just saying....
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---

User avatar
cryoscum
STOP... Hammer Time The Prodigy
STOP... Hammer Time    The Prodigy
Posts: 1802
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:54 pm
Location: QLD, NSW & VIC

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby cryoscum » Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:54 pm

Openrocket has proven to be more reliable than Rocksim and RasAero for extreme flights and virtually indistinguishable for flight profiles of a more tame nature.

Cross linking to another thread here, rockoons were abandoned by NASA in the 1950's as not worth pursuing. The practical complexities are virtually insurmountable & this has not changed since then. Read up on the subject (always a good idea).

Just my 2c worth...
AMRS L3 | NAR L3 | QRS 089 | MDRA 224
AMRS Technical Advisory Group

Total impulse for 2016: 32,458 Ns (thus far)
Total impulse for 2015: 84,231 Ns
Total impulse for 2014: 40,757 Ns
Total impulse for 2013: 62,927 Ns

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:56 am

Yeah as I understand launching operations (rocket launching from the balloon) as well as recovery problems, primarily being the huge drift that the balloon would undergo, put a big hole in the idea. I did say that when I first mentioned using a balloon. That and the balloon required to lift the 26kg rocket would have to be 7.3 meters in diameter... Well easy to see why Nasa didn't continue investigating the idea. Although I have to say, there is a company planning on sending people to near-space (at least that's what they call it) under balloon power, and from memory the capsule weights 500-600kg.
So maybe we shouldn't dismiss the idea after all. Unlike Nasa, we aren't trying to launch a proper payload carrying sounding rocket or anything. All we need the rocket to do is go above 100km and come back down again safely. And Australia has a lot of desert :D

Just chucking the idea around as a possible alternative. Interesting to note that OpenRocket is more reliable then Rocksim.
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---

User avatar
Scoop1261
L3 Rocket GURU
L3 Rocket GURU
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby Scoop1261 » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:15 am

Before you get all enthusiastic about launching something to 100km's you should read up on the Space Activities Act!
You will need VERY DEEP pockets, and a suite of awesome lawyers just to get you to the launch permit stage!
Why Limit Yourself?

AMRS #4 - L3 |TRA #11080 - L3 |MDRA #263

Impulse: A Whole Lot ..So much I've lost count!

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:14 pm

Bahaha I know the legal stuff is virtually impossible in Australia! I've never said it wasn't. I was just trying to point out that the actual rocket itself might not be that hard.
As someone else said, if you were going to launch an amateur rocket, Australia isn't the place. I'm merely just coming up with a rough idea of how you might possibly do it. Nothing else.
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---

User avatar
jase
It runs on moonshine
It runs on moonshine
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 11:06 pm
Location: 43° South

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby jase » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:19 pm

citizenspace wrote:Bahaha I know the legal stuff is virtually impossible in Australia! I've never said it wasn't. I was just trying to point out that the actual rocket itself might not be that hard.
As someone else said, if you were going to launch an amateur rocket, Australia isn't the place. I'm merely just coming up with a rough idea of how you might possibly do it. Nothing else.


"Bahaha" ??? really ??? that is your response to one of the most respected rocketeers in this country???

WOW...

When you've built and successfully flown a high powered rocket, come back and let us know how 'not that hard' it was...

Then, once you've flown to over 10,000 ft let us know how easy that was, OK?

FWIW - I get that you are 14 years old, are interested in aerospace etc and think that high school is a waste of time, no problems, I hated it too. BUT, if you want to further your interest I'd suggest a fundamental change in your current attitude might possibly be appropriate. Nothing else.
Me and my rockets run on Moonshine.

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:27 pm

Dude calm down, I wasn't laughing at him... Man I'm not trying to offend anyone, I was laughing about how hard the legal stuff is. Guess it's hard to convey context through text.

I was saying it might not be that hard when launching from a balloon compared to ground launch with the rocket. That's why I said that the actual rocket self itself might not be that hard. In context of course. I'm not trying to offend anyone or suggest I even know 1% of what you guys know. If you read at the bottom, I'm just chucking a rough idea around. Nothing more.
I'm not ignorant either, I've never suggested I know more then you guys, it's the reason why I'm on the forums, so I can learn more. You guys all know more then me, which is why I'm putting up the idea to see what you guys think the major problems are with it, and how you might solve them.
Sorry if I offended anyone accidentally in the process.
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---

User avatar
jase
It runs on moonshine
It runs on moonshine
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 11:06 pm
Location: 43° South

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby jase » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:39 pm

I can read...

If you are finding it hard to convey context through text maybe you should study harder?

Despite a couple of people saying that it is virtually impossible you keep saying 'it might not be that hard'...

Dude, keep calm, go fly a high powered rocket, and then let us know how hard it is.

Chill mate, take it easy - I'm just trying to help you!
Me and my rockets run on Moonshine.

citizenspace
Parachute Packer
Parachute Packer
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Space: The ultimate in higher

Postby citizenspace » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:54 pm

If you can read and knew what I was saying then why did you say that I was laughing at the most respected rocketeer in the country? Or were you implying that it is disrespectful to laugh alongside him as well?

Now you're going to insult me personally? And tell me to calm down at the same time, like I'm the one who's got himself all worked up?

Also I have been saying the rocket might not be that hard. It is my understanding that the problems with rockoons are all recovery based. Well most of them. So that doesn't make it virtually impossible, unless people are telling me it's virtually impossible without telling me why it is.
It just makes recovery very hard, right? Or am I missing something?
Also I have started to fly high powered rockets, although I am not really in the area you guys call high powered. Just got my L1, aiming for my L2. This is just a speculative thread.

Can we discuss this properly and not result to personally insulting each other?
The best way to do something well is to make sure you've tried all the ways of making it fail.
NASA does it all the time with simulators :D
---


Return to “Higher, Faster, Further”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest