Space Truckin'

Courtesy: Pirate Art Institute

I loved this painting the first time I saw it.
It was an illustration for a short story called; Ride to Live, Live to Ride. The story was about a biker who was a high-iron contractor doing orbital assembly, but ends up being a hero. It appeared about 20 years ago in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. I've long since lost
track of the issue, author and artist.

My brother Keith photographed and printed it for me. Some cleanup was done at the time with ink and brush. I had a grandios plan to screen print parts of it on layers of plexiglas, for a 3D effect. The back layer would've had the stars engraved and sandblasted into it. The stack would then be mounted in a deep frame and internally backlit and edgelit [fibreoptic].

More recently I scanned it and we digitally cleaned it up again and then added colors to the Grateful Dead logo.

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.

Wanted: Spunky Lab Assistant

A recent Best Buy commercial shows some
customers shopping for a Geek Squad assistant.
This in no way inspired this post, the body of
which was already written, it merely makes it
timely.

In order to expidite the process I'm going online
in my search for a new Spunky Lab Assistant.

First let me dispel rumors about what happened
to my previous Spunky Lab Assistant [SLA].  She
did not get blown up, burned down, nor
bisected by lasers.  I did not turn her into a
monster, rather she turned herself into a 
monster all on her own.  Another story for
another day [off the web].

This is not as easy as I thought it would be.
I'm trying not to be too picky about specific
job skills, but there are quite a few that
are inherent to the long tenure of any Mad
Scientist's SLA.

Summary of desired job skills;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Major or minor in any 2 of the following;
chemistry, mathematics, physics, applied or
theoretical, computers, or other tech field.
A dropout with a good reason has preference
over a graduate with a bad reason.

Experience with grant applications.

Know the A B C's of proper fire extinguisher use.

Be able to sew Ripstop & Tubular Nylon, Kevlar,
Nomex and Denim.

Know the charades gestures for; Sedative.

Be able to work both English and Metric factors
in the same equations without freaking out.
[It's a rocketry thing.]

Know what the Periodic Table is for, and NOT for.

Be able to tidy up without disturbing "all my
tubes and wires and careful notes."

Know how to make a lab coat and safety gogs
look jazzy.

Make GOOD Coffee, sometimes with makeshift
equipment, or under adverse conditions.

In the words of Dr. Hawkeye Pierce as played by
Donald Sutherland; "She's gotta be able to work
in close without getting her tits in the way."

Oh yeah, most important;  If I start running, she
should be able to keep up!

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.

A Classy Ride

But pretty it aint.
The Bell X-14, I want one!
Can anyone name another jet powered aircraft
with an open cockpit?
I suppose it's just as cool that the X-14 is a VTOL,
but I like the open cockpit best. I want to take it
to the coast and wave to the girls as I cruise slowly
just off the beach, scarf trailing behind.
Surprisingly it would go 172mph and reach 20,000Ft,
brrrr, it's cold up there!  Well, not too surprising,
any plane that can VTO has power to spare.  Range
was 300 miles. Corpus Christi here I come.

The X-14 was built on the cheap in 1957 using  
Beach Bonanza and T-34 Mentor parts. Vertical
lift is provided by a belly mounted flap that
vectors the dual jet exhausts downward. Bleed
air from the engines to puffer vents at the wingtips
and tail provides control in hover.

Good news, it's being restored at a museum in Indiana.

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/