Jabber, Jabber, Jabberwock

JABBERWOCKY

Lewis Carroll

(from Through the Looking-Glass

and What Alice Found There, 1872)

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

  And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

  The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:

  Long time the manxome foe he sought --

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

  And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,

  The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

  And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through

  The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

  He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?

  Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'

  He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

  And the mome raths outgrabe.

I love the Jabberwock. It sounds like complete nonsense, but there’s fun to be had squinting between the lines.  I found the poem at this website. dshaw@jabberwocky.com   A dusty place last I looked.

What started this was my purchase of the Tremors Attack Pack, a 4 movie DVD set.  I knew and loved the first two movies, but didn't even know about the later two till then.

As I first watched Tremors 3; Back to Perfection, the flying morph of the Tremors creatures first came on screen and I pointed at it, snapped my fingers twice, popped my forehead with my palm and yelled; "Jabberwock!"  and I hadn’t read the poem in years.  Then it launched itself with it's butt on fire!  Haw, rocket powered flying Jabberwock!  A natural boost glider.

There are many examples of evolved chemical warfare in nature. Webbing, irritants, venomous bites and stings are only the most obvious ones. The plant world, both land and aquatic don’t just compete for light but modify the medium in which they live, sometimes in exclusionary ways. The sessile ocean reefs are practically a warzone rife with other examples. 

The prime example for this blogpost would be the Bombardier Beetle, with it’s caustic binary chemical defense spray. From there it’s not such a big step to evolve a rocket propulsion system, improbable in a higher life form though it be.

For centuries we humans have made oxidizers for blackpowder  from our own urine, as well as the excretions of other animals.  Consider how history would’ve changed if we had had rocket powered Jabberwocks as an example.

A short BTW:  I googled the Vorpal Sword.  Another nonsense word at the time, but now it’s become a popular weapon in gaming and comics. Ran across’em a few times myself.

A longer BTW:  In Tremors 2; Aftershocks, when the first Shrieker comes into view it presages its' entrance with much bashing and crashing, louder and louder.  Earl and Grady are getting increasingly nervous and are pointing their rifle barrels higher and higher. Around the corner steps this little 3ft tall spud, they start to let their guard down, then it charges… It reminds me so very much of the old WB Merrie Melodies cartoon; Inki and the Mynah Bird. The jungle thrashes, the jungle crashes, one imagines terrible things; rabid rhinos, a constipated elephant or even worse!  Then out steps the Mynah Bird, tiny and totally blasé. Do not be fooled, DO NOT let your guard down! 

BTW to the BTW;  You're not likely to see Inki and the Mynah Bird on TV anymore due to racial censorship. 

3rd BTW to the second BTW; I cheered back when Warner Brothers Channel brought back the singing frog as its' mascot. I think it would be really cool if WB's New Looney Tunes brought back the Mynah Bird, at least as a cameo appearance, or six. The main characters have to pause the dialogue or chase for pedestrian traffic. The kind of gag Looney Tunes is well known for.  Or; Wylie Coyote thinks a Mynah Bird might be easier pickins' than Roadrunner...NOT!

Now the tune is stuck in my head!

BTW the fifth;  I've been sitting on this draft for a long, LONG time because it's a real rambler. It never gets any shorter though, and it still defies any attempts to divide and conquer.

Rockin' with Fizzie-Rocs

Fizzie powered toys rocked!
I consider one of these to be my second flying rocket after the Korny-7 but my first real thrust powered rocket. A recent web search yielded several similar rockets of this type and most look close enough to my recollection so as to make no never mind. They operated as water rockets powered by water and a fizzie type tablet. Pour in the water with the provided funnel/measuring cup, drop in the pellet[s] and quickly insert the nozzle plug. Then turn the rocket upright and insert the plug assembly in the pad base which is attached to the ground with a large nail, back-away and pull the release string. No recovery system, thus the rubber nose tip.

Vinegar and baking soda would probably fly just as well but the fact that the fizzie is in pellet form allows time for insertion of the nozzle plug where a quick dissolving powder would not. I don't recall what became of this rocket but I know I put it on the 2nd story apartment roof at least once.

About the same time, or not long after, there were a couple other fizzie powered toys, a squirt pistol and a submarine. The sub definetely used more than one pellet and would drive forward, dive, then resurface. I wanted that sub. I did have the gun one summer. Both were also red plastic.

These were toys that, like pump-up water-rocs were an idea that were ahead of the materials technology of the day. Polystyrene doesn't hold up well enough. Polycarbonate [Lexan], PET and similar plastics have allowed the reintroduction of such products

Wig-Wag Monocopter

Ascent position










Descent position [almost]

The Wig-Wag is yet another monocopter with an adjustable pitch wing. Like the two Campitch MC's the wing automatically adjusts from ascent pitch to descending autorotative pitch.

The Wig-Wag employs a weighted arm mounted to the hub and a wire loop mounted to the underside of the wing leading edge which goes around the weightbar. Before ignition, the weightbar dangles down holding the wing down with it. As rpm increases centrifigal force swings the weightbar outward, thus upward, until it's horizontal, pulling the wing up to ascent angle. After motor burn out, as rpm decreases, the weightbar sags downward again, bringing the wing down into autorotation mode. Unlike the Campitch MC's, this pitch control system is more responsive in flight and doubtless more tunable on the ground since it's controlled by the mass [and length] of the weightbar alone rather than the interaction of wing weight and spring strength. This actually works like the weight ball governor on old steam engines [and some early petrol engines], particularly stationary units. So like them, at peak performance, the Wig-wag monocopter is literally running ball[s]-out.

While the Campitch MC's would've been difficult to design without serious drafting, preferably CAD, the Wig-Wag was cobbed together a part at a time with no drafting of any sort. It aint perfect, but it's a good first attempt and entirely functional from first flight on.
The wing and hub are used parts resurrected from the remains of the CP-1. This makes for a wing that is too small and heavy but it does turn in fair flights on C motors. The weightbar is made from an RC pushrod clevis and a piece of 2-56 all-thread with a lead fishing weight nutted on. My biggest conceptual stumbling block was coming up with a suitable weightbar pivot mount on the hub. Installation of an upright piece of G10 fiberglass was easy enough with my bandsaw followed by grinding access for the flybar with a moto-tool. What was actually more difficult was bending a suitable wire loop for the wing and then mounting it in the best spot. I bent two loops and then punched three pairs of holes in the wing before I was reasonably satisfied. I was glad to be utilizing used parts as I had no concern for cosmetic issues.

So far the Wig-Wag has made three flights. First on a C6, then on a D5, followed by a D12. While the two Estes motors were fine, the Quest D5 suffered a case burnthrough. While this is no big surprise anytime you spin one, that recycled undersized wing makes matters worse. This led to replacement of the motor mount tube.

After puzzling for quite a while over a name, I settled on Wig-Wag due to the resemblance between the weightbar and a wig-wag railroad crossing signal.

SpaceX Has A Pipedream

Spaceflight Now has a recent article [Reprinted from CBS Space] on SpaceX's vision of making their boosters reusable. The simulation video is sharp. The stated intention is for direct descent and landing under rocket thrust. Sounds simple enough on the face of it but I immediately saw some flaws in the plans.

First Stage; Slant range puts the booster a long way from the launch site and variable target orbits increase possible descent points over a large arc, typically well out over the Atlantic. The sheer height of the Falcon 9 booster makes me want to install much larger landing legs [and more of them]. This is why all flyback booster designs thusfar have wings, wheeled landing gear and sometimes jet engines.

Second stage, This might actually be a bit easier than the first stage. Because the 2nd stage is itself orbital [or nearly so], one can pick the reentry point and bring it down where desired. A reentry heat shield adds a lot of weight though. At least 2 motor restarts are needed, but restarts are not that uncommon here. Need a lot of spare fuel for both the deorbit and the landing. Second stage motor nozzles are typically optimized for high altitude/vacuum operations and will be inefficient back at sea level.
I believe it was NRL that was ground testing a booster 20 or so years ago that was low-pressure [no turbo pumps] and had a variable expansion thrust bell, kinda like the "turkey feathers" on a fighter jet engine nozzle. This allowed inflight expansion ratio optimization for any altitude.

Capsule and boosters are shown returning on thrust alone. Even with thrust for landing, parachute systems would still be more economical and probably lighter for slowing and stabilizing the vehicles in an upright position instead of relying on attitude thrusters and the mains alone. Parachutes would also add some safety in case of motor failure, or at least reduce the splat.

>>>>>>
"We'll see if this works," Musk said. "But it's going to be certainly an exciting journey. And if it does work, it'll be pretty huge. If you look at the cost of a Falcon 9 ... it's about $50 (million) to $60 million. But the cost of the fuel and oxygen and so forth is only about $200,000. So obviously, if we can reuse the rocket, say, a thousand times, then that would make the capital cost of the rocket for launch only about $50,000. ... It would allow about a hundred-fold reduction in launch costs."
<<<<<<

Was Mr Musk reading that off a script???
Nobody's gonna get 1000 uses out of any booster, even if there is that large a backlog of flight contracts. Divide flight contracts by; payload production rates, vehicle refurbishment rate, available ground support, optimal launch windows... I'm sorry but I would've scoffed at 100 flights per booster. How about 10 flights each on a 5-10 booster fleet. By then; if the economics are sound, you'll be building a few replacements and/or an improved new fleet anyway.
Note that Elon says a 1000 fold reduction in booster cost relates to only a 100 fold reduction in overall launch costs. That sounds reasonable as other costs go up drastically. Additional flight systems complication, booster retransport, refurbishment, range comm/nav systems, additional facilities...manpower, manpower, manpower.

I have great respect for SpaceX and what they have accomplished. In fact I'd like to work for them, and I can't say that about most of the aerospace industry or NASA itself.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1109/30spacexflyback/

Beware of Rotating Parts!

At a typical modroc launch, any monocopter pads get set up nearby other pads in order to share launch control wires. I already posted about the [extremely] close call I had on the Pitchwing-2 first flight. This time it was another new monocopter called the Wig-Wag.

Right after takeoff the Wig-Wag drifted downwind slightly and the wingtip collide with an 1/8" stainless steel launch rod. The rod was mounted in the same launch rack that the Campitch-2 didn't hit. The launch rod was ruint [Texan for ruined, but with more finality], totally FUBAR! The only part of the rod that was still straight was the 1" section clamped in the pad base. One might expect the rod to be bent away from the direction of impact, or bent sharply toward DOI at the point of impact. Nope, neither. After the sharp 20-25deg bend away from DOI at the base the remaining rod length was bent in a continuous arc like a bow. quite strange really. I'm an old hand at straightening bent metal but this was scrap!

I owed Art Applewhite a new launch rod. Luckily I had some spares at home.

The monocopter wing was fiberglassed balsa and suffered only a 1/2" deep notch in the leading edge, and the MC went on to complete a nominal flight. That's right, it kept on flying.

Repairs were relatively easy. I sawed out and replaced a square of balsa, filled the gaps with Cya and micro balloons, then sanded the fill to shape and reinforced the area with a fiberglass patch. Since the wing is already a veteran of many flights on the Pitch Wing 1, I didn't even bother to touchup the paint.

I'm glad this first flight was only on a C6, if it'd been a D12, damage might've been much worse.

Campitch 2, 1st Short Hop

Pics by John Lee

These are pics of the Campitch 2's 1st flight. Just a test hop if you will. I would've posted these pics before if I'd known they existed. They were uploaded out of flight sequence at Flickr, so I didn't find them till the other night.

When I designed the CP-2, I meant it to be an 'E' powered monocopter and I succeeded well. A 'D' motor barely gets it into the air as the photos illustrate. Only about five feet up, woo-hoo!

I hate "reinventing the wheel" [Unless it can become a perverted mockery of science!], and I see no point in rewriting the flight description when I can copy & paste from one of my own previous blogposts.

>>>>>The first flight back in August [2010] had us rolling on the ground, and we weren't even on fire! I launched the CP-2 on an Estes D12-3, it took off from a 2x4 pad low on the ground and ascended to no more than 3ft [more like 5ft] as it travelled 5-6ft upwind, then curved left going just over a modroc launch rack passing through a gap in the launch rods with scant centimeters to spare, then it drifted back downwind to land right next to it's takeoff point. It looked a lot like an olympic highjumper in action.<<<<<

Lucky thing, one of the launch rods was missing that day. [And that leads to another story.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I haven't posted lately because I had to move. With major assistance from my brother, I started moving early Thanksgiving week. It took us nearly 2 weeks, after which there was a lot of settling in and rearrangement of storage, closely followed by more holidays.

While I have my own PC up and running, it currently has no online connection. I have to borrow time on other computers.

Moonburner Motors Get Bent

First time I've tried to upload a vid clip.
Hope it works OK.


When I first started experimenting with making my own sugar motors, I made several decisions under their own merits which eventually lead to an epiphany. When combined, these factors
created an interesting moonburn synergy.

First, I chose to use 15/16" diameter [24mm] phenolic cases that are thicker walled, than Aerotech, being 3/4"id instead of 7/8"id. To simplify the nozzle issue, I elected to buy Aerotech nozzles instead of producing my own from scratch, though this requires that I turn down the nozzle OD to fit my cases. Like most other experimental motor makers, I still wanted to maximize the propellant fraction. I decided to pour directly in the cases, including the convergent frustrum. No casting tubes or liners required. After only a couple false steps, I tried silicone tubing as my core spindles, which works great when casting sugar propellant. The silicone spindles are longer than the motor case, and extend all the way from the nozzle to beyond the top end. A rod or dowel, as the case may be, the same diameter as the nozzle throat, but loose inside the silicone, extends through, acting as an alignment guide and throat plug. After curing, the rod is drawn out, then with a steady tug, the silicone stretches, losing contact with the core wall, and pops right out pretty as you please.

Though I started with core burners, a major goal all along was to make moonburners since I couldn't buy any commercial ones for a long time, and then when I could, only in 'J' and above.
With the old Aerotech D-G moonburners, the fuel was precast and had a drilled port to one side that you would have to blindly hunt for with a piece of 'S' bent Thermalite. Even for
someone experienced with these motors, it was tough to install, tough on the Thermalite and chuffed too often at the best of times.
Epiphany; My flexible silicone spindles need not be straight. I attached the silicone tubing to the nozzle throat with a short plug, then 'S' turned the tubing over to the case wall where
it's held in place with a suitably fashioned wire clip. This creates a smooth pathway for the ignitor during installation AND expulsion, even when using Copperheads. This 'S' turn also creates a short area of coreburn configuration near the nozzle, producing a higher takeoff spike before it settles into full moonburn mode. Perfect for a medium size 'D'-'E' bird.

Another goal of making motors was that my wife [now ex] and I had always been into clustering, especially air-starts. Estes 'D's are great for this but keep costing more and more.
I was already enamored with the idea of focused thrust [long before Flis-Kits] and wanted a way to add that feature to already existing rockets with air-start clusters. The curvy silicone core spindles work even better with the angled nozzles. Now there's only one shallow bend instead of an 'S' curve. This also reduces the coreburn section, making the motor more of a true moonburner. Since classic moons ramp up and down more gently than other motors, they are less prone to affecting the flightpath if multiple ignitions are uneven, or lacking. Focused thrust, of course, further reduces possible flightpath disturbances. I made a 10 degree angled nozzle holder for my lathe, so that I could modify the Aerotech nozzles before gluing them into the cases.












Angled lathe tooling with unmodified nozzle
installed, and a used angle nozzle motor.

Campitch 1 Monocopter Pt 3

A good ascent. Note wing gap.

Takeoff. Sign of an inadequate flybar.
1 ft up and already 1 ft sideways.

The wreckage.

The Campitch 1 is no more.

It made 10 flight attempts in 10 months.
Four flights were considered OK, one was very good,
and only one was nearly perfect. One way or another
it tossed it's wing four times. It tore up one part  or
another of the cam system four times, and broke one
flybar. The final flight did all three at once.

Even the best flight bent the cam follower bolt.  It
was the ninth flight and I used one of my 24mm E  
sugar moonburners.  It ascended to around 60 feet, it's
highest flight, and when it coasted about halfway down
it finally slowed enough to retract the wing into full
autorotation mode.   D motors never gave it the needed
height to do this.

On the tenth flight, I used an Aerotech E11J. At about
the 40ft mark, still under power it disintegrated. The
flybar was broken and the cam follower bolt was half
torn from the wing root, and the bolthead was pulled
through the G10 fiberglass cam track.

This spinny thang taught me more than all my previous
monocopters put together.

The biggest problem the CP1 had was it's pretty wing.
Being fully glassed it was too heavy [especially with
balance weight added to the leading edge], and that
eliptical wingtip made it too slick. Together this
gave it a higher than average rpm AND a tendency to
not slow down anytime soon.
Again, because of the wing weight, the unweighted
3/16" flybar used on the first five flights lacked authority.
This caused the motor and wing to pick their own pitch
angle and for the monocopter as a whole to squirrel
around and track at odd angles instead of going straight
up. The second flybar was 1/4" diameter and slightly
longer, but it had so much drag  altitude was reduced
by half.
The wing retract spring is always an issue. If it's too
heavy; it takes extra rpm to extend for takeoff.
If it's too light; it has to slow more to retract into
auto rotation. I used springs because I had a pile to
pick from. A better solution would be rubberbands
which might be easier to fine tune.
Finally, 1/8" pultruded carbon tubing it totally
unsuitable for D+ powered monocopters.  I managed
to break them outright 4 times, in three different
applications.

I'll spare y'all the flight log.
Yahoo Monocopter Group won't be so lucky.

Sugar Motor Testing Pt.2, Getting Sweeter

t
Art Applewhite's Cinco38 Prototype
Pizza Hut

My Tide Wave version with ISP
38-360 case for comparison

Tide Wave on 1st sugar flight.
Using Ultra-White recipe.

Tide Wave pouring on the sugar
and spinning hard.


A big update to the previous post.
Since that test took place back in February I've burned 3 more sugar reloads in the test series. Since the test stand is still broken [the new guage I want for it aint cheap], I went ahead
and flew them in an Art Applewhite 38mm Cinco Saucer clone, my Tide Wave, or in Art's prototype Pizza Hut Cinco38.
Since it's 1st flight I've trimmed down the wavy edges twice on the Tide Wave. The spin under power was fine by me, but the spinning causes recovery problems. I've also flown the Cincos on an Aerotech G64W reload and an ancient and suspicious single-use Aerotech 320Nt H145 manufactured in 1988. These 2 motors definitely bracket the sugars below in the medium H category.

The motor that blew the stand had Bi-modal KNO3 [an inspecific mix of powdered and granular], my usual opacifier 1% Lamp Black, plus 1% Red Iron Oxide. A very fast recipe.
The next 2 are the same as above but with 8% Titanium shavings added for sparks. One had fine sparks, the other coarser sparks. The mildest recipe, nicknamed Ultra-White, uses granular KNO3 and 1% Titanium Oxide as a white opacifier. The only test recipe not burned yet is Ultra-Pink. Same as Ultra-White above but with the addition of 1% RIO on top of the TiO2.

So far, except for the wrong nozzle incident, everything has worked well. Ignition with my now standard Copper Thermite ignitors has been a non-issue. The RIO sure is messy stuff but it
really does improve pouring viscosity, just as other sugar cookers have noted. I didn't doubt it, but wow, seeing it happen is amazing.

At this rate, I'll have to make more test loads by the time the test stand is repaired.
Aw shucks.

Sugar Motor Testing [not all sweet]

Ignitor hookup.
Black crescent at bottom of guage
window is probable damage.


Instant On! Ignitor wires inflight,
Guage needle is still on zero.


Burnout. Foreground smoke
came out of guage face


Expelling a bit of casting tube.


Blackened guage guts hanging out.


In order to evaluate possible changes to sugar motor recipes, I developed a new shorter motor that would be more economical to operate. It helps that I was given a damaged reload case [Thanks Ray!]. My long motors use two 6 1/8" fuel slugs, unfortunately the short motor, after repair, only fits 5 1/4" of fuel. An even 50% would've been nice, but this is close enough, and it was a free motor.

Late last year I made 4 pairs of reloads, all physically the same, but each pair has a somewhat different formula. All are moonburners since they burn twice as long. Eventually some will go to a thrust stand, but IMO, chamber pressure tests are initially more important. It's good to know what even works before tieing up [or risking] a high dollar digital thrust stand.

I made a new nozzle with a 3/16" throat that would be used with some of the new grains, especially the baseline formula. Being virgin territory, none of these reload kits have the
nozzles listed on the labels like I do with the larger mature reloads. On Feb, 20 2010, the morning of the test, I picked the new 3/16" nozzle and installed it with reload #1 rather
than with reload the mildest. Reload #1 was a hotty and should've been tested first with a 1/4" or even 5/16" nozzle. The motor survived the test but barely. Probably only because it trashed the guage and was blowing out both ends. As it is, it severely belled the nozzle washer and crumbled the corners of the nozzle where it was pressed into said newly angled washer. Despite the short foliage and limited dipersal angle, we never did find the polycarbonate guage window. There is evidence that the pressure guage was damaged previous to this test attempt.

The hydraulic test stand has been cleaned and is getting rebuilt. Besides the new & better guage, it's getting a grease fitting and a brake bleeder valve. Instead of filling the stand with brake fluid as before, I'm going to use grease. This will allow for easier transport of the stand and with a good grease gun I should be able to use the stand to pressure test motor case materials and other components.

Apollo 11 Owners' Workshop Manual, No Really!

When I first saw this last year or so over on
Zzakk's garage, I assumed it was some kind
of spoof.  Not sure if the book even existed,
or was just a cover.

I found the link on Spaceflight Now website.
The link went to Amazon.  There it was, for sale.

I'd like to add that I had the Haynes manuals for
all my motorcycles and love them.  Much better
than Chiltons IMO.  Haynes books are more
likely to list a substitute for that hard to find
Grumman Z347L  pintle injector spanner.

Maybe if my brother buys this for my birthday 
I can fly that Lunar Lander out of my back yard.
It looks good there, but it's tough to cut around.

My very 1st Rocket, Corny but Cool.

This had to be my first rocket, such as it was.
I'm sure it wasn't my first parachute though,
there were doubtless some paratroopers before
then, certainly plenty of them after. You could
always tell where my brother and I lived, there
were always parachutes, or the remains of
parachutes, hung from the wires and trees near
the house.  Actually, it wasn't too long before
we were making our own 'chutes out of whatever
came to hand.
I was only 4 or 5 years old, but I remember
getting the Corn Flakes and going positively
apeshit over the Corny 7 offer.  I remember
having to wait till the cereal was gone before
we could cut off the boxtop and send it off
with the whopping 35cents.  Y'know, back
then, food would actually get stale after a
while.  I still remember the agony of waiting
and the pure joy of the package arrival. To
this day ordering stuff is at least as much fun
as fondling stuff in a store, especially in this
electronic age we live in.  
 I admit it, Ebay be FUN!
I remember playing with the Corny 7 in the
back yard and the "Foomp!" sound it made as
you launched the capsule.   I also remember
playing with it awfully close to the apartment
building, but I don't actually remember
whatever became of it. Likely I put it on the
roof.
As I rcollect, being the Corny 7, the astronaut
figure in the capsule was Corny the Rooster.
The available info doesn't seem to support this
though.  I question whether all of the capsules
were blue.  I keep thinking mine was red.
Thanks to RBToys.com.

Atlas 5 Updates

Atlas 5-411 Astra 1KR, Flt#8, with single strapon.
Note the vectoring main motors.


Atlas 5-511-AV010, New Horizons, Flt#7
All up with five strapons.


This illustration speaks for itself.


A special thanks to Gunter Krebs who made comment on my Atlas? 5 post. He also posted a link to the Atlas 5 info on his most excellent website; Gunter's Space Page
I had visited Gunter's sites in the dim and distant past and since then lost his address.

So it turns out that the Atlas 5 can be flown with up to five strap-ons, or as few as one [or zero of course]. This is still practically unique in the space launch industry. Aside from the two shuttle systems which are asymetric by nature, the augmented Atlas 5 is the only other one that I know of. This of course requires a robust thrust vector system and an equally capable flight control computer able to adapt to, or be programmed for, the asymetry from the moment of liftoff in addition to the usual trajectory programming, weather, and any other possible anomolies.

While the original Atlas balloon tankage was welded stainless steel, I learned that the Atlas 5 tankage is isogrid [machined] aluminum. The main motor[s] are/is a Russian RD-180. Actually a single assembly with two chambers. One more very useful link: Atlas 5 Data Sheet

The DSP Goddard

3-2-1 Ignition.
Note the clip attachment.


1st stage ascent.


Staging smoke and weathercocking

DSP stands for Deep Space Probe, 'cause it sure doesn't look like an atmosperic rocket. I named it Goddard in honor of Robert Goddard's famous first liquid fueled rocket which
was likewise a tractor rocket. A tractor rocket pulls from the front rather than pushes from the aft.

The Goddard was inspired and built in a junk pile back in the early '90's. The top cap is from a Colgate upright toothpaste pump that was a good fit on a BT-60 coupler once the internal
threads were moto-tooled off. It was supposed to look like a docking ring, but I never bothered with the extra details. The large ball was from a Valentines balloon bouquet and was clear plastic with a tiny teddy bear inside. Last I looked, it and other sizes were available at Hobby Lobby. The gold pressure spheres are plastic Xmas ornaments. The conical body is the
heart of it and was originally a Yoplait Yogurt cup. The legs are the only costly components, Dave Brown fiberglas pushrods from the hobbyshop. The tailring is a handy droppoff of LOC 5.38 airframe tubing.

One leg is used as a blind launch lug for a 3/16" rod. The other 2 legs each have an ignitor extension wire up them, with flat blade crimps at the bottom for the micro-clips and binding posts at the top for wrapping ignitor wires to.

With a single motor, the Goddard balances behind the nozzle. With two D12's the CHAD booster motor crosses the balance point, and once I even flew it 3 staged. I don't recommend it except in absolute calm. It flies quite well on E11J & F12J's on calm days, and E15W & E18W on breezier days. The old Estes E15 was good, but I have yet to try the newer Estes E9.
Even staged, short delays are the rule.

I have 80% of the parts I need for an H-I sized version, that'll stand nearly 6ft tall.
All Range Safety Officers fear me!

1st pic by KeithAlanK, pics 2-4 by John Lee.

I was speechless!

I'm over it now.
This is the longest I've gone between posts.

When the Obama administration killed the NASA Constellation Program I truly did not know what to think. Since I didn't want to start blathering like an idjit without knowing any real facts,
I just shut up. Too bad politicians and newscasters can't do the same. I do try to look at both sides of anything, thus I can't be gung-ho about every cool aerospace project that comes along,
or about a cancellation. I did NOT like the Constellation Program, particularly the Ares I, top and bottom. I won't miss it a bit. The Ares V/VI iterations looked better, but were plagued by problems as well. As near as I can tell, it needed bigger engines than are currently available. Until they re-approach or exceed the Saturn Program F1 engine they're wasting time and money. Now it appears that NASA is going to redirect research money in that direction. The "New Hydrocarbon Engine" is intended to meet or exceed the Russian RD-180 which puts
out 860,000 Lbs of thrust. Not big enough I say. Hydrocarbon is fancy talk for Kerosene. Not as much energy per pound as burning Hydrogen, but it's a LOT denser, which saves volume on the first stage where it can be used. Saved volume means less booster weight and height, and it doesn't need to be insulated, or defueled if a launch is seriously delayed.
Another article spoke of NASA initiating real research into orbital fuel depots. Another needed link in the chain to future space activities.

Between cancellation of Constellation and the Shuttle retirement, the job loss numbers are nothing short of staggering. I hear numbers like 20,000 jobs lost in Florida alone. Combined job losses in others states may rival that. This is a bad time to even threaten that, given the nation's financial woes. That's a lot of folks that aren't going to spend an extra dime towards improving the economy even while they can. Another factor to consider is the message this sends to our children. We are trying to get more kids interested in science and high tech educations, meanwhile the folks who currently hold those kinds of jobs are getting laid-off enmasse.

A recent report stated that it would take 2 years from the go signal to add new flights to the shuttle's remaining few. No big stumbling blocks besides putting the fuel tanks back in production. The shuttles will still be flying for most of this year, so that still leaves a bit of a gap. Maybe some overtime or the temporary shift of extra workers would close that gap somewhat.
I do think the STS system is aged, but we should not walk away from its' capabilities for any reason. I never felt that the STS should be our only major access to space, and now less than ever, but we should continue to use it where other vehicles won't suffice. At this point it would take quite a while to produce new improved shuttle orbiters, but we should get on with that. It'll always be more expensive to do so later.
Special thanks to the articles I found at Spaceflight Now.
http://spaceflightnow.com/

The Ace MonoKopter in Action

This is my Ace MonoKopter when I flew it in Oct 2009.
The motor was an out of production [rats!] Aerotech G33-5J.
I've wanted to do a post about the MonoKopter for a while
now, but a lack of decent photos held it up. You must agree,
this sequence of pics are well worth the wait.

To give y'all an idea, the MonoKopter is 48" from motors to
wingtip fin, the wing is 27" x 7" x 3/4"thick, the flybar is a
1/2"dia x 36" oak dowel.   The weight is approxx. 28oz less
motors.

I ordered the Monokopter from Korey Kline in person, along
with a couple of his other Ace kits at LDRS-6. Being an ARF,
I had a bit of a wait for it to be produced and shipped. Well
worth it though. After numerous flights in the late '80's and
throughout the '90's, I considered it retired after a bad
landing damaged it. In fact I planned to give it a Viking funeral
after I completed CAD drawings of it. I'm glad I decided to
start flying it again. I figure by next fall I should have a serious
replacement for it after my smaller [and cheaper] monocopter
autorotation experiments are concluded.  Ummm, lets say
instead, when the experiments progress far enough.

You might wonder why MonoKopter is spelled with a capital K.
Normally monocopter is spelled with a lower case C. I can't
recall for sure at this point if it was correct, but the MK's
designer Korey Kline, like myself, Ken Kzak, are fond of K's.
I do know I've always spelled it that way.
The photo set was a good bit longer but I left a few out.
Blogger.com will only let me upload five per post.

25% More Goblin

Pics by; KeithAlanK

Welcome to 2010.

This is my slightly upscale Goblin. I originally built it
for a halloween Goblin contest that was going to be
held at a launch at McGregor TX about 10 or so years
ago. The launch got rained out as I recall, but I'm
glad I built the new Goblin anyway.  It uses an Estes
Citation Red Max/Patriot black plastic nosecone. The
fins are 1/16" plywood through to the MMT, and the
airframe is BT-60 with 1 layer of 3oz glass. The
motor mount is 24mm for D12's thru small F reloads. 
Like the original Goblin it uses streamer recovery.

The demon artwork came from one of my favorite
comic books; Those Annoying Post Brothers by Matt
Howarth. When I first saw that demon I thought of
the Goblin artwork, they're from different artists
but appear to be from the same Hell.
The Indecline art on the left fin is from a stenciled
graffitti that is on freight cars all over the country.
I skewed the art slightly to better fit the fin, and
now the character looks like he's walking downhill.
Indecline inclined.

As a kid I built an original Goblin kit, making it my
first D kit though I never flew it on more than a C6-5.
The trees verging on my local field were already well
enough decorated with my model rockets. That Goblin
got scrapped long ago, but its' nosecone still flys on
another rocket.
The stand is a cast iron star that came from a Texican
gee-jaw store.  My brother gifted me several different
stars one Xmas after I flashed on the concept of using
them for rocket stands. Thanks bro.

Atlas? 5

I was surfing for the X37B and landed on the Atlas 5 which
is going to be the X37's launch vehicle soon. I didn't know
much about the Atlas 5 and admittedly, I still don't know
enough.  Research will continue though.  I have a few
points to make in this post, more may arise in the future.

As near as I can tell, this is practically a new vehicle, it
bears so little commonality with the Atlas that I know,
it hardly deserves the name. Atlas always had  3 liquid
rocket motors in a stage and a half arrangement. It took
off on 3 motors, then later drops the outer pair,
continueing on the center motor alone. A sweet solution.
This new bird has only 2 liquid motors.
More important than the name, L-M adds the older Atlas
launch success rate in with the new one, claiming over 600
successful launches. Most of those flights were made by
the original Convair later renamed General Dynamics.
Marketing hype that doesn't fool anybody who cares.

The pics above are from the recent launch of the Intelsat
14 satelite. Reading about the flight, I found that it used
3 strap-on motors. Scrolling through the roll-out pics,  I
was struck by the sight of 2 of the strap-ons side by side.
Typically 3 strap-ons would be attached equidistant around
the booster. Further through the pics I find the third strap-
on on the other side next to an empty mounting pad for a
fourth. The Atlas 5 is outfitted for only 4 strap-ons mounted
in 2 opposite pairs. I would've designed the booster with 6
mounting pads, which would allow any balanced combo of
2,3,4, or 6.  It's a pure guess on my part that they didn't
want to rebuild the launch pad. The umbilical tower is a
bit too close to allow strap-ons on that side.

These days, strap-on motors are about as likely to have
inward canted nose cones as traditional concentric cones.
The Atlas 5 strap-ons have a cone style I've never seen
before. They are canted inward but the tip is full width
and flattened next to the main booster.
Wonder what they call it?