Smash Rocketry New Group Project - The Proton M

This topic has 391 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by Kevin Osler.

Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 392 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 38 39 40 →

Author

Posts
January 20, 2012 at 3:39 pm #55234
BEAR
Ok, if we go for separation of six booster pods, it must be done philosophically correct. So in thinking about a design, please remember the old aviation design adage; if it is wierd, its British; if it is ugly, its French; and if its weird and ugly, its Russian. So lets make the separation mechanism weird and ugly! 8)
January 20, 2012 at 10:10 pm #55235
Warren B. Musselman
Moderator
Well finding out that the “strap-ons” aren’t really strap-ons in the way we Americans use them changes things a lot. One of the true “COOOL” things about the Delta II and Trojanowski’s Delta III was the booster deployment. As I recall, Ed Wranowsky and Steve figured out cored nylon bolts with e-matches and BP as the deployment method. It was great and everyone practically creamed their jeans over it – especially when it actually worked for all 6 strap-ons. However, given that the Proton was only done this way for logistical reasons and the strap-ons don’t fall off, booster deployment would be useless self-aggrandizement and most especially wouldn’t be even vaguely scale.

Personally I’m starting to think it should be a staged AND clustered flight – 4 L’s or M’s in the booster and 4 K’s in the sustainer. At least if I read the specs on the original right. This would fit with the Soviets using a single motor with 4 chambers and 4 nozzles for a single massive engine. In all that mental meandering, I think the best thing would be to commit to CTI motors and thermite igniters so that everything comes up to pressure QUICKLY. With a major project, major weight (unavoidable) and near invisible fins, we damn well better get simultaneous ignition. We’re also looking at Lexan fins…
January 20, 2012 at 10:31 pm #55236
BEAR
Back in the peanut gallery, this peanut is cheering you on saying “I LIKE IT”. Of course I am also speaking from ignorance and lack of experience too. So the club engineers that make motors, do they make the grains to fit CTI cases or are sponsorships going to be gathered to help pay for 6 M motors? and for the second stage also? (4 more Ms because the 2nd stage motors are the same as the 1st stage motors.) 3rd stage on the Proton M switches to Liquid H2 and LOX for fuel and oxidizer, therefore different motors.
January 20, 2012 at 11:23 pm #55237
smashburn
Ok, if we go for separation of six booster pods, it must be done philosophically correct. So in thinking about a design, please remember the old aviation design adage; if it is wierd, its British; if it is ugly, its French; and if its weird and ugly, its Russian. So lets make the separation mechanism weird and ugly! 8)

I’ll go ahead and nip this in the bud, No booster deployment on this project.

We have enough to do and it is not authentic.

🙂
January 20, 2012 at 11:27 pm #55238
BEAR
Darn, I was really looking forward to explosive bolts!
Is there a meeting tomorrow? Am I invited? If so, when and where? PM is you did not get my number yesterday.
January 20, 2012 at 11:34 pm #55239
smashburn
Personally I’m starting to think it should be a staged AND clustered flight – 4 L’s or M’s in the booster and 4 K’s in the sustainer. At least if I read the specs on the original right. This would fit with the Soviets using a single motor with 4 chambers and 4 nozzles for a single massive engine. In all that mental meandering, I think the best thing would be to commit to CTI motors and thermite igniters so that everything comes up to pressure QUICKLY. With a major project, major weight (unavoidable) and near invisible fins, we damn well better get simultaneous ignition. We’re also looking at Lexan fins…

You suggesting no central motor? just load the ‘boosters’ which of course are not boosters. We can talk about it .. risk factor goes up a bit.

I’d really like to look at Lexan for the fins as well .. especially since we’ll have to have ‘some’ fins on the 2nd stage. We considered it on the Delta but just didn’t get around to it I guess.
January 20, 2012 at 11:37 pm #55240
smashburn
Darn, I was really looking forward to explosive bolts!
Is there a meeting tomorrow? Am I invited? If so, when and where? PM is you did not get my number yesterday.

Still working on it .. we’ll do something .. stay tuned.

No, no PM from you ??
January 20, 2012 at 11:57 pm #55241
Dave Smith
the planets may be in alignment for tomorrow. If the Protons get their meeting going, then they could join the Vacuum bagging class later at the Tasty Weasel!
January 21, 2012 at 1:54 am #55242
BEAR
Yeah, I know! Use explosive bolts on the separation of the two stages! LOL
As far as my interpretation of Warren’s last comment, I think he is saying no center motor and 6 motors around the outside of the big tube. That would explain the thermite ignitors to help guarantee ignition of all six motors and if done correctly, simultaneous ignition of all six motors. That would really be cool.

Lexan fins will work fine and with a little polishing, they can be optically clear. I have made telescope lenses from laminated 1/4″ plexiglass, in the past.

My own opinion is that we need to have a center motor that almost overwhelms the 6 outside motors. This is to help negate any instability if any of the other motors fail to ignite. They need to be air started so that once the main motor is up to pressure and moving the bird up the rail, the other motors fire. They are really more for effect. With the rocket already gaining speed and stability, the instability introduced by a motor that did not fire will be reduced. The clear fins may need to bigger also so that it is overstable.
January 21, 2012 at 3:11 am #55243
Warren B. Musselman
Moderator
I may have missed something, but I seem to recall one of you posting that it was 4 or 6 nozzles in the first stage and 4 nozzles in the second with NO central engine, just a central oxidizer tank.

Since the Delta project, thermite igniters have become standard for many in the M and above class. Since the Delta project, CTI motors have proved themselves for quick ignition… Since the Delta project, many of the original team have gone on to some seriously complex or large projects and the need for some well-thought-through issues such as staging couplers, ignition systems and “apparent” fin-less-ness have had multiple solutions solved within the club – I suggest that no one rush this for MHM. Think O-fest in order to provide enough time. Even working every weekend for 6 months didn’t solve the uprOar project and something like this may well end up being far more complex.
Author

Posts