Armory Sponsor
Hypervelocity Rockets ( first static test on page 5 ) (Page 4 of 6)
|
Originally Posted By VVinci: Took a while for me to find this thread again, hate it when I close something I was reading on ARF by accident. OK, that is a #3 screw, which is pretty darn small already. Lack of dimensions was throwing off my perspective despite you telling me it was a 1" OD tube. Even so, I don't know that I wouldn't go all the way down to 0-80 screws and more of them in a zig-zag pattern. Like I said, any thin material and especially CF hates stress concentrations. You should plan to torque them carefully to the same amount, which will probably require a special torque wrench for screws that small. I'm sure someone makes them, but I've never had a use for one. that’s a really good idea, we definitely want an even distribution all around the radius. I’ was also going to use locktite so we don’t have any screws coming loose during flight Stand by for some more thoughts, let me see if I can figure out a way to communicate better some of what I see. |
|
Originally Posted By VVinci: I'm not familiar with BurnSim. When it says "Max Pc", where is that maximum pressure at? I am assuming that is maximum pressure on the rocket nozzle area? If it is max pressure inside the tube, there's going to be a problem with the tube ballooning and likely rupturing I'd think. Just to be clear on what I know and don't know, back in the day if I had been asked to design this rocket's structure, someone from the thermal simulation world would have given me the loads and temperatures in a form canned for my purposes, so I'm having to feel my way through their jerb here.  I looked at the Google drive pics. I didn't see the one view and dims that I would need if the above assumption is true. What I need is a straight on view looking right up the nozzle with the ID of the nozzle end and nozzle throat noted. That flat projection should give the surface area that the BurnSim max Pc acts on, which allows calculation of the total load. Have you already done that? Can I upload marked up drawings to that drive? If I can, I will mark some things up for you. I have only used Google Drive to the extent of trying futilely to help my kids years ago when they were using it in school. I am not used to working with it at all. My world requires high security file exchange platforms, which are clunky obsolete pains in the arse to use, but I know how to use them. Mostly.  Here’s the graph legend, sorry for leaving that out ,  Feel free to mark any images and reupload them, it should be editable , if not you can post them in the thread |
|
Originally Posted By JonathanwFL: It’s very much appreciated! I looked at what I have to give back to the community, Im going to randomly give a fired Panzerfaust 3 tube to one of the donors who supported the project as a thank you when we get close to the objective https://i.imgur.com/jeVXPFJ.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/GucbFO0.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/jzEeEVX.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/X04zWz9.jpeg Last day is the 8th to donate (to win this) and then I’ll draw a random name to win the panzerfaust 3 tube |
|
Originally Posted By Rocketboy42: Getting propellant to burn that fast is gonna be a challenge. Aerotech Blue Thunder and New Thunder are pretty impressive. I think military propellants incorporate nitroglycerin into the formulas as well. It was designed to get a "near miss" within <100 meters of an incoming Soviet MIRV warhead, where it's own "radiation enhanced" aka: "Neutron Bomb" would fry the Soviet MIRV's electronics, fusing systems, and even hopefully an incomplete premature (but still extremely hot & violent) "fizzle" within the Soviet warhead's own Plutonium "pit" or "physics package" that would destroy the inbound MIRV. And to counter the presumed Soviet camouflage of chaff, gasses, infrared flares, and inflatable balloon decoy warheads also on the ICBM, the Sprint missile & SAFEGUARD was designed for intercepts only within 20 miles, give or take. Which is when the REAL MIRVs & warheads would be leaving any decoy materials behind on the terminal reentry phase. And, since the MIRVs are closing at 8000m/s or so, and the intercept window was only that last 20 miles, Sprint had to be FAST. So, Sprint accelerated at 100g's, going from "zero" to 12,000 km/h (approx. Mach 10, but it's a moving target as altitude increases & air thins...) in just 5 seconds. Getting batteries (Cartridge fired reactive molten salt, I'd guess?..) with enormous power-density/mass to run the mother of all radio transmitters through the conductive radio-opaque plasma sheath the Sprint made on the way up, was probably some of the biggest challenges. Details on the solid fuel are where they start getting coy with info. But it was described as "A solid-cast nitrocellulose similar to smokeless gunpowder, with Zirconium staples(?) in layers." I get the Zirconium, as it's one of the most aggressive burning metals available. And, it's a relatively high mass atom being #40 on the periodic table. Which is handy, especially if you only care about net thrust at any price, and don't give a damn about Isp. But "staples"  that makes me think it is trying to carefully convey "a special or specific formed shape" without actually describing what that shape or form was. |
Like most Americans, I learned all I needed to know about the Vietnam War by watching M*A*S*H*...
|
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: The fastest/hardest acceleration of a US deployed missile (literally "1 day") was the Sprint interceptor for the SAFEGUARD system. It was designed to get a "near miss" within <100 meters of an incoming Soviet MIRV warhead, where it's own "radiation enhanced" aka: "Neutron Bomb" would fry the Soviet MIRV's electronics, fusing systems, and even hopefully an incomplete premature (but still extremely hot & violent) "fizzle" within the Soviet warhead's own Plutonium "pit" or "physics package" that would destroy the inbound MIRV. And to counter the presumed Soviet camouflage of chaff, gasses, infrared flares, and inflatable balloon decoy warheads also on the ICBM, the Sprint missile & SAFEGUARD was designed for intercepts only within 20 miles, give or take. Which is when the REAL MIRVs & warheads would be leaving any decoy materials behind on the terminal reentry phase. And, since the MIRVs are closing at 8000m/s or so, and the intercept window was only that last 20 miles, Sprint had to be FAST. So, Sprint accelerated at 100g's, going from "zero" to 12,000 km/h (approx. Mach 10, but it's a moving target as altitude increases & air thins...) in just 5 seconds. Getting batteries (Cartridge fired reactive molten salt, I'd guess?..) with enormous power-density/mass to run the mother of all radio transmitters through the conductive radio-opaque plasma sheath the Sprint made on the way up, was probably some of the biggest challenges. Details on the solid fuel are where they start getting coy with info. But it was described as "A solid-cast nitrocellulose similar to smokeless gunpowder, with Zirconium staples(?) in layers." I get the Zirconium, as it's one of the most aggressive burning metals available. And, it's a relatively high mass atom being #40 on the periodic table. Which is handy, especially if you only care about net thrust at any price, and don't give a damn about Isp. But "staples" that makes me think it is trying to carefully convey "a special or specific formed shape" without actually describing what that shape or form was. I love this place. |
 Panzerfaust 3 Tube winner and Gofundme update |
|
Originally Posted By Rocketboy42: Getting propellant to burn that fast is gonna be a challenge. Aerotech Blue Thunder and New Thunder are pretty impressive. I think military propellants incorporate nitroglycerin into the formulas as well. The SPIKE used Sub micron to achieve the incredibly high burn rate (.25 second burn time) however anything under 15 micron is considered explosive material so unless I have an FEL assisting, I can’t go that low. But the with the SPIKE it actually uses a similar weight of propellant as I plan to use for the swizzle stick. The swizzle stick has the benefit of much greater length which means a greater initial internal core surface area. It’s also important to note that to achieve hypervelocity speed, I can have a longer burn time , as the swizzle stick burnt out at .5 seconds so I have more wiggle room to play with. The swizzle stick uses internal shields that help control the erosive burning while managing the internal pressure, that will be the big thing to test in static testing |
|
Originally Posted By VVinci: Took a while for me to find this thread again, hate it when I close something I was reading on ARF by accident. OK, that is a #3 screw, which is pretty darn small already. Lack of dimensions was throwing off my perspective despite you telling me it was a 1" OD tube. Even so, I don't know that I wouldn't go all the way down to 0-80 screws and more of them in a zig-zag pattern. Like I said, any thin material and especially CF hates stress concentrations. You should plan to torque them carefully to the same amount, which will probably require a special torque wrench for screws that small. I'm sure someone makes them, but I've never had a use for one. Stand by for some more thoughts, let me see if I can figure out a way to communicate better some of what I see. seating torque for 0-80 ranges from 1.7-2.3 in-lbs per my source. You can find such micro torque drivers here: https://www.kctool.com/torque-screwdrivers/ |
==COLLECTIVISM IS SLAVERY==
Everyman, I will go with thee
and be thy guide,
In thy most need to go
by thy side.
Everyman, I will go with thee
and be thy guide,
In thy most need to go
by thy side.
|
Originally Posted By Mr_Psmith: seating torque for 0-80 ranges from 1.7-2.3 in-lbs per my source. You can find such micro torque drivers here: https://www.kctool.com/torque-screwdrivers/ Do you have the recommended torque for this screw ? That’s for finding that, that will be really helpful 
|
|
Originally Posted By JonathanwFL: Do you have the recommended torque for this screw ? That’s for finding that, that will be really helpful https://i.imgur.com/HonNv7n.jpeg See NASA's tables here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170003491/downloads/20170003491.pdf look in particular at page 28 and 130. 1/8 inch engagement of 3-48 UNC shows 7.2 in-lbs for 304 stainless. This seems higher than I expect based on other references' less detailed data for 8-18. Caveats: 1. I am not an expert in this area, in fact I am not even a mechanical engineer 2. Value in NASA table is for 304, not 18-8 specifically (but these are of course similar composition, and 18-8 may be considered in the class of 304). However I don't know how their K factors differ. 3. Other references list 18-8 steel in 3-48 thread with **lower** torque values. Passivation of 18-8 probably raises the K factor. Although 3-48 is not listed for 18-8 in the fastenal reference (https://www.fastenal.com/content/merch_rules/images/fcom/content-library/Torque-Tension%20Reference%20Guide.pdf) you can see that the values for #4 are already lower than 7.2 in-lbs. 4. References like https://www.quickerproducts.com/pdf/Quicker_Products_Torque_Chart.pdf and others indicate 18-8 stainless for 3-48 UNC at 3.9 in-lbs. If you assume passivation increases K from 0.2 to 0.3 then you get 5.85 in-lbs, much closer to the 7.2 in-lbs for 304 in NASA's chart. |
==COLLECTIVISM IS SLAVERY==
Everyman, I will go with thee
and be thy guide,
In thy most need to go
by thy side.
Everyman, I will go with thee
and be thy guide,
In thy most need to go
by thy side.
|
I appreciate it , thank you Also I have drew up an idea I had for a cheap remote test stand using C channel and welded up 1/2 -inch steel plates. I was going to use 1-2 Ft L shape rebar to hold it to the ground but I’ll probably need a better way to anchor it to the ground    
|
|
Changed the final nose cone design to go with solid aluminum, instead of Teflon . I didn’t realize Teflon was so heavy. I’m going to use teflon as the igniter plug. Also increased the diameter of the outer flare of the nozzle for better drag stabilization . I am also still looking for machine shops to quote these parts, please reach out if you have recommendations    
|
| 3 tubes have been made so far, my vendor is out of town for a couple weeks so the remaining 7 will be worked on after, hardware (nozzle and nose cones will probably be done in a few weeks and samples will be sent to the composite vendor to accurately drill the mounting holes into the motorcases |
|
Our vendors are making great progress on the motorcases and rocket hardware Almost all the components are finished, should be another week or two . The vendor took some mock up photos with a quarter length of motorcase, the final tubes are 40” long       
|
|
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: What was the final decision on the propellant? APCP with the aggressive high surface-area core? A stepped core APCP that progressively increases the in size as it gets too the nozzle to deal with erosive burning and high max flux, I have a few different commercial propellants I’m trying to see which one can match the originals lbs thrust output . I also want to copy the originals inhibitor on the core surface that helps deal with the max flux issue |
| @vvinci what are your thoughts on this pressure/thrust graph ? Based on my sims, I could achieve something similar as long as the max flux is reduced using the inhibitor on the core surface specified by the patent but my software can’t account for that type of motor design so it’ll have to be tired and tested a few times |
|
Originally Posted By JonathanwFL: @vvinci what are your thoughts on this pressure/thrust graph ? Based on my sims, I could achieve something similar as long as the max flux is reduced using the inhibitor on the core surface specified by the patent but my software can’t account for that type of motor design so it’ll have to be tired and tested a few times Sorry I've not kept up. I'm not an engine guy, but my first thought is what will the hoop stress be at Pmax in the tube? You may be OK there based on a quick look in Roark's, but I did not do more than a mental calculation. IIRC, my worry was buckling, which I think is most likely to occur at the sharp transition between the metal nozzle insert and the CF tube. CF does not like stress concentrations. Wish I had gotten back to you on that earlier. A taper instead of a sharp corner would have been useful. I would also use something like Scotchweld DP-420 in addition to the screws. Yes, you will be above its rated temp on paper, but I suspect the burn will happen so fast that the full joint won't get hot enough to melt. Have you considered putting an inexpensive load cell in your test rig so that the rocket thrust can be measured? You would need to have a slip fit on the circular clamps that hold the rocket body so that fore-aft motion would not be constrained. They are dirt cheap now compared to when I used to buy them. You would need an inexpensive data logger that could also power the load cell. That would produce a thrust/time curve like the one you posted. |
|
Originally Posted By JonathanwFL: I recently got a ton of great documents related to this project from a museum , one included the motor data for this rocket . This is very helpful for this the static test portion https://i.imgur.com/BBrL5ut.jpeg That data sort of looks like the idealized thrust vs. time graph for a Star-core design. And the rest of that, like the longer tail, more like a double-anchor. Or it's the differences created by the progressive grain sizing to manage the very long overall fuel grain. What is the "inhibitor core" in their patent? Is it actually a composition of some kind, or just a geometry & shape? I've been messing with Barium Chromate/Tungsten/PTFE/KClO4 low/no-gas delay mixes for smoke grenades... Finding BaCrO4 at a halfway decent price has been an absolute PITA. Best price I found was $50/500g from India on eBay, and the seller had only 2.5 stars so... Nope on that. I've been making it from BaCl & KCrO4. Which is an easy synthesis, nearly 1:1 molar. about 1.2:1 by wt. in tap H2O, & stir. It does a double displacement, and the BaCrO4 is about as H2O insoluble as it gets. Unfortunately, it's a stupid messy precipitate. Ultra-fine particle size, goes right through anything looser than actual analysis filter papers & media. My finest Buckner suction & frit is #3, and I am not letting this crud anywhere near it. And it sticks to labware like crazy. So, experimenting, a bit of NaOH to get the filtrate on the basic side, about pH 9-ish will do, and adding some Isopropyl 91% alcohol about 15% by vol. to the H2O does nothing for the reaction, as the KCrO4 and BaCl is barely soluble in it, but it keeps the BaCrO4 from sticking to labware as bad. And the H20/IPA/KCl filtrate is easy to pour off. And like "XXX-Chromate"-anything... it's not cyanide or Dimethylmercury or anything, but those aren't good for you. So gloves, & wash up frequently. But, the mix is gasless, and "slow" and is used as delays and combustible, but low impact, and retardant in all sorts of pyro applications. Is the "Inhibitor" anything like this? After watching guys make DIY flip-spoon & clapper/primer cap smokes, that ALWAYS blow their top of, or ignite instantly, because when they just stuff Visco cannon fuse in there, or 1/4: Chinese time fuse, they have no concept that: "Yes, it's "fuse" but you take BP of any sort, and CONFINE it... it's going to deflagrate and just "race" to the end, like any damn closed cartridge case or sealed muzzleloader will. So I took a look into "How it's actually done." Fascinating stuff. Even at the end of WWI, it was getting pretty sophisticated. And by WWII, most everything, even flares & smoke, never mind actual grenades, was "complicated" enough that "Bubba just wanting a bag of BP & a boom" can't/won't replicate it. Except for the Japanese. They... they were different in their attitudes about small arms & ordnance. They were practically just one rung above a coconut full of BP, and a steel & flint to light it. (You KWIM, if you're familiar with the Picric Acid and "Smash the grenade on your helmet" to start it story...) |
Like most Americans, I learned all I needed to know about the Vietnam War by watching M*A*S*H*...
|
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: That data sort of looks like the idealized thrust vs. time graph for a Star-core design. And the rest of that, like the longer tail, more like a double-anchor. Or it's the differences created by the progressive grain sizing to manage the very long overall fuel grain. What is the "inhibitor core" in their patent? Is it actually a composition of some kind, or just a geometry & shape? I've been messing with Barium Chromate/Tungsten/PTFE/KClO4 low/no-gas delay mixes for smoke grenades... Finding BaCrO4 at a halfway decent price has been an absolute PITA. Best price I found was $50/500g from India on eBay, and the seller had only 2.5 stars so... Nope on that. I've been making it from BaCl & KCrO4. Which is an easy synthesis, nearly 1:1 molar. about 1.2:1 by wt. in tap H2O, & stir. It does a double displacement, and the BaCrO4 is about as H2O insoluble as it gets. Unfortunately, it's a stupid messy precipitate. Ultra-fine particle size, goes right through anything looser than actual analysis filter papers & media. My finest Buckner suction & frit is #3, and I am not letting this crud anywhere near it. And it sticks to labware like crazy. So, experimenting, a bit of NaOH to get the filtrate on the basic side, about pH 9-ish will do, and adding some Isopropyl 91% alcohol about 15% by vol. to the H2O does nothing for the reaction, as the KCrO4 and BaCl is barely soluble in it, but it keeps the BaCrO4 from sticking to labware as bad. And the H20/IPA/KCl filtrate is easy to pour off. And like "XXX-Chromate"-anything... it's not cyanide or Dimethylmercury or anything, but those aren't good for you. So gloves, & wash up frequently. But, the mix is gasless, and "slow" and is used as delays and combustible, but low impact, and retardant in all sorts of pyro applications. Is the "Inhibitor" anything like this? After watching guys make DIY flip-spoon & clapper/primer cap smokes, that ALWAYS blow their top of, or ignite instantly, because when they just stuff Visco cannon fuse in there, or 1/4: Chinese time fuse, they have no concept that: "Yes, it's "fuse" but you take BP of any sort, and CONFINE it... it's going to deflagrate and just "race" to the end, like any damn closed cartridge case or sealed muzzleloader will. So I took a look into "How it's actually done." Fascinating stuff. Even at the end of WWI, it was getting pretty sophisticated. And by WWII, most everything, even flares & smoke, never mind actual grenades, was "complicated" enough that "Bubba just wanting a bag of BP & a boom" can't/won't replicate it. Except for the Japanese. They... they were different in their attitudes about small arms & ordnance. They were practically just one rung above a coconut full of BP, and a steel & flint to light it. (You KWIM, if you're familiar with the Picric Acid and "Smash the grenade on your helmet" to start it story...) The motor uses a tapered Bates grain . The inhibitor is aluminum foil C shape that covers parts of internal surface of the the grain until it gets vaporized as seen in the progression from Fig 3a through t 3c Also for this project, I am limited too APCP as it’s not considered explosive material to the ATF and I want to keep above board with that. I’ll have to check out that composition for a non-commercial project, thanks for sharing 
|
|
Originally Posted By WILSON: Since this hobby is just for fun and it's not (even remotely) going head to head with any of our paying dealers. And since I've ALWAYS LOVED rocketry from Estes to Century to ENERJECT to AREO-PACT and beyond! Let's see how this goes,... just for a change from all of that dark stuff (like cancer, heart failure, floods, fire, etc). Please don't expect too much. I don't,.. but I am hoping for the best. Click here! Really interesting thread. Keep up the good work. |
DON'T POST ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE USED AGAINST YOU AT TRIAL
trobertson5-0 "I wasn't put in jail for what I did. I was put in it for what I think."
"there were FBI agents posting in my threads. I've seen the discovery showing this."
trobertson5-0 "I wasn't put in jail for what I did. I was put in it for what I think."
"there were FBI agents posting in my threads. I've seen the discovery showing this."
|
Originally Posted By JonathanwFL: The motor uses a tapered Bates grain . The inhibitor is aluminum foil C shape that covers parts of internal surface of the the grain until it gets vaporized as seen in the progression from Fig 3a through t 3c Also for this project, I am limited too APCP as it’s not considered explosive material to the ATF and I want to keep above board with that. I’ll have to check out that composition for a non-commercial project, thanks for sharing https://i.imgur.com/yUQ1Lst.jpeg Ah... thanks! The Al foil is interesting. I wonder how it's applied. And that grain cross section indeed looks like the "double anchor" style at points.  But a lot of work obviously went into making the progression & transitions in the profile "just right." Are the grains "stepped" or do they have continuous angled tapers in their core voids? I'm trying to picture how a mandrel or form for the double anchor could taper, and still be withdrawn from a molded fuel grain... And I'm failing horribly. |
Like most Americans, I learned all I needed to know about the Vietnam War by watching M*A*S*H*...
|
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: Ah... thanks! The Al foil is interesting. I wonder how it's applied. And that grain cross section indeed looks like the "double anchor" style at points. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/93097/grains1-3449504.gif But a lot of work obviously went into making the progression & transitions in the profile "just right." Are the grains "stepped" or do they have continuous angled tapers in their core voids? I'm trying to picture how a mandrel or form for the double anchor could taper, and still be withdrawn from a molded fuel grain... And I'm failing horribly. The drawings in the patent show the progression of the burn (just clarifying) On the original, they are a tapered circle core. The tapered mandrel likely held the inhibitor as the propellant is poured into the motor. I am going with a stepped version since I’m purchase prepoured grains and I’m going make a jig that cuts into surface of the grains and I’m going to use HTPB to secure them in place in the cutouts I make then bond all the grains together to make a monolithic grain |
|
Anyone got suggestions on specific deserts to test these rockets, it will need have a massive berm (mountain) and very secluded 5-10 miles from any infrastructure or buildings . I don’t think I’ll have anywhere on the east coast to test this unless it’s a military test facility which would be a tough task to be allowed to test there. So it will likely be in that AZ/Nevada/ NM area depending on which states allow for DDs I also plan to rent an Armored vehicle for all participants to stay inside when this is remotely tested to ensure the safety of film crew and anyone assisting . If you have anything like that and would be willing to travel if it’s local , we’d definitely love to have you attend and provide that added layer of safety to everyone involved |
|
Originally Posted By JonathanwFL: Anyone got suggestions on specific deserts to test these rockets, it will need have a massive berm (mountain) and very secluded 5-10 miles from any infrastructure or buildings . I don't think I'll have anywhere on the east coast to test this unless it's a military test facility which would be a tough task to be allowed to test there. So it will likely be in that AZ/Nevada/ NM area depending on which states allow for DDs I also plan to rent an Armored vehicle for all participants to stay inside when this is remotely tested to ensure the safety of film crew and anyone assisting . If you have anything like that and would be willing to travel if it's local , we'd definitely love to have you attend and provide that added layer of safety to everyone involved |
You must play the game. You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit the game.
|
Originally Posted By jhereg: What about out over the ocean? I heavily looked into this , the main issue is a stable gyro assisted remote test platform to test from is very expensive to make , and secondly, filming on high speed cameras would be next to impossible Legally I could do it though I found a range in TX that has the land and safety bunker for me to test for around $3500 a day, still expensive but I’ll try to save up for that, it will take 25 hours to drive there so maybe I’ll need to rent an Rv or something since a lot of equipment is required. I can’t ship my equipment, no freight company wants to touch NFA stuff with a 10 ft poll |
 Building a Hypervelocity Rocket (Mach 5) |
|
Originally Posted By JonathanwFL: I heavily looked into this , the main issue is a stable gyro assisted remote test platform to test from is very expensive to make , and secondly, filming on high speed cameras would be next to impossible Legally I could do it though I found a range in TX that has the land and safety bunker for me to test for around $3500 a day, still expensive but I'll try to save up for that, it will take 25 hours to drive there so maybe I'll need to rent an Rv or something since a lot of equipment is required. I can't ship my equipment, no freight company wants to touch NFA stuff with a 10 ft poll I was thinking about firing from a spot on the shore if you could find someplace to do it where you could verify nobody / nothing was downrange. |
You must play the game. You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit the game.
| You could easily test your motor in a vertical launch if you added a less sharp nose cone, a chute, and separation electronics if you went down the amateur rocket route. They have regular launches where the FAA clears the airspace for them over 50,000 ft. |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: You could easily test your motor in a vertical launch if you added a less sharp nose cone, a chute, and separation electronics if you went down the amateur rocket route. They have regular launches where the FAA clears the airspace for them over 50,000 ft. Main problem is a recovery system drastically increases the weight and changes the entire attachment of the nose cone so I couldn’t easily use the hardware I just made plus thousands in getting certified and doing L1 , L2 and L3 certification with a club before can test these heavily modified rockets that will not function the same as the current rockets I have . Far more expensive then the $3500 I found that will allow me to test these, I will just have to drive 25 hours to the place in TX Also no club in America will allow me to fire these in a destructive device pointed straight in the sky, I would be kicked out and I can’t test them without the spin rate provided by the launcher |
|
Uh... Fundraising idea... Little 1:10 scale Swizzlesticks, aluminum/CF that folks could like, actually use as Swizzlesticks for drinks. And spike olives on pretty easily too.
|
Like most Americans, I learned all I needed to know about the Vietnam War by watching M*A*S*H*...
Some updates, I received a bu ch of photos from nasa regarding the swizzlestick tests at Wallops island in 1967, it gives a close up look of the swizzlestick in all glory  I’m trying to find the video footage from the national archives, (if you have experience in this type of thing, open to advice) Second After 2 years of fighting over a FOIA , I got a ton of research from a technical document on the SPIKE hypervelocity rocket that will be good material for the book  
|
Hypervelocity Rockets ( first static test on page 5 ) (Page 4 of 6)
Armory Sponsor