Getting to space for only pennies! Low Budget Space Program

[ChrisSpace]

Non-serious comment: At this rate, with LBSP, upsilon aerospace and the guys at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/85895-Getting-a-Kerbal-into-space%21, soon every KSP'er will be in space... leaving me here alone and stuck on earth.

Serious comment: you should really check out the above link (especially the comments I made in it), also, don't try to reach space in sugar rockets. the isp and thrust are simply unworkable

If you can develope a cheap and lightweight method of staging, it could make up for low Isp with mass ratio. Five stages to suborbit!

Do you have any idea how hard building and designing a multi-staged rocket is? It is not just a matter of adding a decoupler then resorting the staging list. You have to sort out:

- the small explosive charge that separates the rocket

- timing the charge to go off just after the bottom stage has burned out

- a system for remotely igniting the upper stage engine at a specified time

- setting the time to just after the bottom stage has ejected

- structural components for firmly connecting the upper stage and its engine(s) to the lower stage

- a lightweight flight computer that can do all the above timing to an accuracy of +- 0.1-0.5 seconds

It is not impossible, but it is incredibly difficult to do and the total cost of the rocket goes up quite a bit.

Secondly, when designing your rockets, there is a lot of aerodynamic stuff to consider. Here is a link to free software that you can use to design rockets.

Link:

http://openrocket.sourceforge.net/

It's geared for smaller rockets but will handle larger ones. My college's rocketry team uses this software, and we built a rocket designed to fly to 25,000 feet.

Ah, I remember using that program a lot. But I must say, I have never managed to build a rocket with that that even leaves the troposphere with a +100kg payload

Just goes to show how difficult it is to reach space on commercially available rocket engines. I do believe one day I will design a rocket that can pass the 30km mark with an eraser-sized payload, though.

Finally, PLEASE BE CAREFUL!!! These things can be very dangerous.

I cannot emphasize this enough.

Edited April 16, 2015 by ChrisSpace

[Neil1993]

As someone who has worked with solid propellant and has also very nearly lost eyebrows, fingers and other body parts to said propellant, I would say, don't make solid propellant engines if you can help it! I'm working with a team that's building hybrid engines and consulting for an Indian company that's doing suborbital launches with similar technology and I can say that it's not only more efficient, but way safer too.

Also, I like Upsilon's idea with the weather balloon. Myself and some bros were looking at something similar, but not with a rocket and with some kind of air-breathing propulsion. More than that, I don't want to say (it's a surprise!)

[Xannari Ferrows]

I remember trying out a sugar rocket before. I wasn't quite as low tech, and managed light, durable materials, a parachute, as well as a message attached to it under the nosecone.

That thing was awesome. About my millionth try, I finally got everything set up to where it would fly miles away. Let's just say I never saw it again.

[LowBudgetSpaceProgram]

Thank you everyone for the great feedback! Today I was at the Low Budget Space Center and pulverized the mixture before we cooked it and it performed great! I guess the trick is to mix it evenly before cooking it. I thought melting it alone would mix it enough but apperntly not. We are now going down a good road and hope to have some good launches soon. Now we really need to start researching igniters. Does anyone have any ideas on cheap igniters? Thanks guys! I will have more progress videos up soon. So please check back on my channel for future videos if you are interested in our work.

[How2FoldSoup]

Thank you everyone for the great feedback! Today I was at the Low Budget Space Center and pulverized the mixture before we cooked it and it performed great! I guess the trick is to mix it evenly before cooking it. I thought melting it alone would mix it enough but apperntly not. We are now going down a good road and hope to have some good launches soon. Now we really need to start researching igniters. Does anyone have any ideas on cheap igniters? Thanks guys! I will have more progress videos up soon. So please check back on my channel for future videos if you are interested in our work.

I'd like an answer to the igniter question as well. I've been trying to build my own sugar rockets, but this was the problem I ran into. Also, is it okay to burn in a powder form? Or is it necessary to to melt it first?

[LowBudgetSpaceProgram]

I have seen someone just use it in powder mode. However, cooking it fuses the KNO3 and sugar which creates the best mixture. For igniters now we are just rolling the left over fuel into a small sticks and then shoving them in the motor and using it as a crude fuse. We want something better.

[Bill Phil]

You might seriously want higher energy propellants. Unless you're staging the *** out of this thing...

[LowBudgetSpaceProgram]

You might seriously want higher energy propellants. Unless you're staging the *** out of this thing...

Well once we got our mixture right, about 5 inches of PVC holding this stuff produced 8 pounds of thrust and broke our scale! Yeah staging this will have to be necessary though. Thanks!

[ChrisSpace]

LBSP, see my earlier post on staging.

Also, don't even try using a balloon.

[MircoMars]

I was watching your vids and my girlfriend unknowingly played "the baseballs - candyshop" with perfect timing

I laughed sooo hard!

[lajoswinkler]

Thank you everyone for the great feedback! Today I was at the Low Budget Space Center and pulverized the mixture before we cooked it and it performed great! I guess the trick is to mix it evenly before cooking it. I thought melting it alone would mix it enough but apperntly not. We are now going down a good road and hope to have some good launches soon. Now we really need to start researching igniters. Does anyone have any ideas on cheap igniters? Thanks guys! I will have more progress videos up soon. So please check back on my channel for future videos if you are interested in our work.

Melting oxidizer and reducer? Never do that. Not only your compounds won't solvate one another, but there's also a huge chance of hotspot forming and very rapid total ignition with the melting pot playing the role of a SRB nozzle.

Rocket candy is made by dissolving the components in distilled water and then vigorous* mixing while cooking, until the water content is sufficiently low, and then rolling the plasticine-like mixture into little cylinders. You store them in small airtight bottles or immediately load them in the engine, avoiding air pocket formation.

As for the igniters, buy ten 4.5 V batteries and make a serial connection. Copper wires leading to a piece of graphite lead encased in a capsule filled with grinded match heads, where the capsule is stuffed at the bottom of the engine chamber (not at the nozzle), will cause hot and even ignition in the chamber.

*needed to minimize large crystal grain formation which makes the mixture burn better and safer and to make the warmed fuel pellet pliable

[Deutherius]

LBSP, see my earlier post on staging.

Also, don't even try using a balloon.

I read your previous post, as most likely did the OP. I don't agree though. Sure, it will add development and testing costs, but we are talking sugar rockets here. There's no need for "explosive bolts" or "flight computers".

Right off the bat I can think of at least one cheap mechanism that will passively separate the stages when the first burns out and the second starts producing thrust.

Please excuse the crude 2 minute MSpaint drawing, it's just to illustrate a concept. The "sticks" (couldn't figure out a better name) are supposed to go all around the rocket, I'm thinking 8 of them. Probably good to lubricate them for easy separation. Applicable to side boosters as well. Second stage gets ignited by a fuse running from the first stage, like

(youtube link). How much would this cost? Probably a few $ and a few tests to get the fuse timing right.

As for the balloon, care to elaborate?

Edited April 19, 2015 by Deutherius

[PB666]

If you ever try sugar rockets again, here is some tips:

-BE CAREFUL WITH SOLID FUEL!

-Do not buy sodium perchlorate as a "higher power alternative" because it's bad stuff, trust me.

-Beware the police, in the UK if you get caught you will most likely get the "stupid kids doing stupid things" treatment. I don't know about the US but I'm guessing you'll get branded a terrorist.

Source-was a rocketeer for a long time, ended when my idiot brother had an accident.

In the US they used not to stop stupid kids playing with explosives, when I was a teen I knew 2 kids that blew their heads off playing with gunpowder from shotgun shells in two separate events, and I knew a third kid who blew off half of his foot.

Powdered nitrates are dangerous when finely mixed with organics. The most finely mixed are the covalent compounds.

TNT = tri-nitro-toluene

NG = nitroglycerin

Picric acid

And off course there is the Texas City accident where ammonium nitrate killed 500 people. NH₄NO₃ is banned in the state now.

When nitrates are mixed with organics they should not be subjected to heat or impact forces that might generate heat, that means that the fuel should be added to the assembly as a cartridge last. Mixed fuel has to be carefully added to the cartridge, its a good idea to do this in a cool humid environment, and it should be stored cool and slightly moist (to avoid the possibility of electrostatic events).

Your ISP is acceptable for a booster up to about 30,000 feet, but beyond this you will need a fuel with a higher ISP. Your aerodynamics are unsuitable for a low mass you will have to lower the coefficient of drag considerably. This occupation has a high risk and a low chance of success.

[SelectHalfling0]

This is an interesting Idea. I don't think you will reach space, but some altitude should be possible (which would be cool anyways, especially if you used sugar and KNO3).

[lajoswinkler]

And off course there is the Texas City accident where ammonium nitrate killed 500 people. NH₄NO₃ is banned in the state now.

It can't be banned. It's a fertilizer. What is the agricultural industry supposed to put on their fields? Sand?

What might be banned is selling bulk amounts of the pure compound to individuals and things like that. But banning a compound, what does that even mean? It's absurd.

This is an interesting Idea. I don't think you will reach space, but some altitude should be possible (which would be cool anyways, especially if you used sugar and KNO3).

Of course he won't reach even close to 100 km. He'll be lucky to reach 10 km.

[Skyler4856]

IF Your only concern is the cost of the rocket in and of itself, you could look into novel launch procedures...

[ChrisSpace]

I read your previous post, as most likely did the OP. I don't agree though. Sure, it will add development and testing costs, but we are talking sugar rockets here. There's no need for "explosive bolts" or "flight computers".

Right off the bat I can think of at least one cheap mechanism that will passively separate the stages when the first burns out and the second starts producing thrust.

[spoiler: Like this]

Please excuse the crude 2 minute MSpaint drawing, it's just to illustrate a concept. The "sticks" (couldn't figure out a better name) are supposed to go all around the rocket, I'm thinking 8 of them. Probably good to lubricate them for easy separation. Applicable to side boosters as well. Second stage gets ignited by a fuse running from the first stage, like

(youtube link). How much would this cost? Probably a few $ and a few tests to get the fuse timing right.

Your design would likely work for most rockets, and probably even this one, however the fuse would have to be the perfect length for a near-perfect timed staging. But I like the concept and I think this idea should be further looked into by LBSP. Your comment on not needing a flight computer, however, is illogical. How else would the rocket navigate, keep communications with ground control, handle all its cameras, etc etc etc?

As for the balloon, care to elaborate?

If we are going to use a balloon to bring the rocket up to a higher altitude, the balloon will need to:

- have enough buoyancy to carry a very heavy rocket

- stay balanced enough while carrying the rocket, and stay very balanced during liftoff

- have navigation systems capable of keeping the balloon near the launch site

- be capable of remotely lighting the rocket once a certain altitude has been reached

These all look like easy tasks, but carrying the entire rocket up into the sky and then lighting it would take far more effort, time and money then making the rocket larger and launching from the ground.

Just to clear up, none of this means I am doubtful or critical about this project. In fact, I am actually quite excited about LBSP. I am simply pointing out what will and won't work with the kind of time and resources LBSP has.

[Deutherius]

Your design would likely work for most rockets, and probably even this one, however the fuse would have to be the perfect length for a near-perfect timed staging. But I like the concept and I think this idea should be further looked into by LBSP. Your comment on not needing a flight computer, however, is illogical. How else would the rocket navigate, keep communications with ground control, handle all its cameras, etc etc etc?

I think you are overcomplicating the original idea, again, we are talking sugar rockets here. Adding expensive and unnecessary hardware seems like overkill for this kind of inexpensive kitchen rocketry (not to mention limiting its already sub-par performance). At most you will want something to measure max altitude, a radio beacon to find the payload after touchdown and a simple parachute system for this small electronic circuit to survive the fall (if we make the rocket stages disposable, the payload can be separated at burnout passively, or with a help of a simple sepratron system initiated by a longer fuse after the last stage burns out). The rocket doesn't need guidance, communications with ground control, anything like that. Simple stabilizing tailfins are just fine and dandy.

You can add GPS transmitter if you want to for better tracking, but be wary that commercial units might have CoCom limits regarding max velocity and/or altitude.

If we are going to use a balloon to bring the rocket up to a higher altitude, the balloon will need to:

- have enough buoyancy to carry a very heavy rocket

- stay balanced enough while carrying the rocket, and stay very balanced during liftoff

- have navigation systems capable of keeping the balloon near the launch site

- be capable of remotely lighting the rocket once a certain altitude has been reached

These all look like easy tasks, but carrying the entire rocket up into the sky and then lighting it would take far more effort, time and money then making the rocket larger and launching from the ground.

Just to clear up, none of this means I am doubtful or critical about this project. In fact, I am actually quite excited about LBSP. I am simply pointing out what will and won't work with the kind of time and resources LBSP has.

Well, if you really want to get a sugar rocket to space, it's probably the most inexpensive solution. I don't have figures on a rocket that would, but I doubt it's going to be very heavy. I don't know why you would want to stick navigation systems on it - the idea is getting the rocket to space and getting a confirmation that it has reached space, the balloon itself can be kilometers away from ground control when the rocket launches. The lighting mechanism can be easily made from a barometric digital altimeter, no need for remote control. The stability at ascent and launch is an issue, but nothing that can't be solved by some clever designing and a few tests.

I also like the idea of the OP, and it sparked my interest in low cost propellants - I would just try to go as simple as possible.

[ChrisSpace]

I think you are overcomplicating the original idea, again, we are talking sugar rockets here. Adding expensive and unnecessary hardware seems like overkill for this kind of inexpensive kitchen rocketry (not to mention limiting its already sub-par performance). At most you will want something to measure max altitude, a radio beacon to find the payload after touchdown and a simple parachute system for this small electronic circuit to survive the fall (if we make the rocket stages disposable, the payload can be separated at burnout passively, or with a help of a simple sepratron system initiated by a longer fuse after the last stage burns out). The rocket doesn't need guidance, communications with ground control, anything like that. Simple stabilizing tailfins are just fine and dandy.

Wait, are we not even adding a camera? And could the high winds in the upper atmosphere be handled by 'simple stabilizing tailfins', as you are implying?

Well, if you really want to get a sugar rocket to space, it's probably the most inexpensive solution. I don't have figures on a rocket that would, but I doubt it's going to be very heavy. I don't know why you would want to stick navigation systems on it - the idea is getting the rocket to space and getting a confirmation that it has reached space, the balloon itself can be kilometers away from ground control when the rocket launches. The lighting mechanism can be easily made from a barometric digital altimeter, no need for remote control. The stability at ascent and launch is an issue, but nothing that can't be solved by some clever designing and a few tests.

Firstly, any suborbital 'sugar rocket' will need lots of propellant for even a tiny payload, so either way the final rocket will be quite heavy. And, again, you don't seem to understand how strong the wind can be at these altitudes. This, combined with the fact the balloon will naturally take a long time to reach launch altitude, means it could drift very far. I'm talking several dozens of kilometers, not just a few. As for the cost, well, I actually do not know what would be cheaper, but I still suspect a larger rocket would be cheaper than a secondary launch stage with completely different engineering requirements. Still, I am starting to like the balloon idea, I just don't know if it will be worth the time/effort/money needed to design and build it.

[peadar1987]

If you're planning on going to space, the high winds in the upper atmosphere will probably only be encountered when you're already moving at over 1000 m/s, so in the grand scheme of things, they're not going to make much of a difference to your flight.

[Deutherius]

Wait, are we not even adding a camera? And could the high winds in the upper atmosphere be handled by 'simple stabilizing tailfins', as you are implying?

Camera is a luxury. Expensive luxury. This is about kitchen rocketry with high chance of the payload not surviving. I wouldn't risk my camera unless there was a history of successful launches and recoveries.

Regarding the tailfins, that will highly depend on the altitude that you launch from. The lower you launch, the faster your rocket should be moving through high atmo, and the less the high winds will affect it. Going for cost-effectivity, I'd go with static fins, no flight computer and optimal launch altitude, whatever that is. Catastrophic failure with expensive payload is going to hurt much more than catastrophic failure with no electronics at all (or inexpensive ones). It's also going to be way harder and expensive to design actuated tailfins.

Anyway, this whole "flight computer" stuff I was referring to was in regards to your post about decouplers, and how it is not necessary for decoupling and low altitude flight, which would be optimal for enthusiast sugar rocketry.

Firstly, any suborbital 'sugar rocket' will need lots of propellant for even a tiny payload, so either way the final rocket will be quite heavy. And, again, you don't seem to understand how strong the wind can be at these altitudes. This, combined with the fact the balloon will naturally take a long time to reach launch altitude, means it could drift very far. I'm talking several dozens of kilometers, not just a few. As for the cost, well, I actually do not know what would be cheaper, but I still suspect a larger rocket would be cheaper than a secondary launch stage with completely different engineering requirements. Still, I am starting to like the balloon idea, I just don't know if it will be worth the time/effort/money needed to design and build it.

UpsilonAerospace mentioned a balloon + 2 stages to just barely reach space - I don't have any figures, but I wouldn't imagine the rocket itself is going to be in the region of multiple hundreds of kg, which I would consider "heavy".

The balloon drifting off is an issue how, exactly? Assuming you go with the simple and stupid route, you're not going to have anything remotely controlled, so distance from ground control should not be an issue. Lets be realistic - if you really want to reach space, is 50 km of balloon drift going to matter in the end? You are most likely not recovering that payload anyway (assuming it even survives).

Edited April 20, 2015 by Deutherius
typos

[Hcube]

About the staging mechanism :

My grandfather used to work for Matra and once was tasked to invent a 100%mechanical staging system for a anti-air missile (a SRB rocket, basically) because the computer controlled, electrical system created accidents if the missile was carried on a ship (electricity and water do not mix well)

I could always ask him what type of mechanism he used ( it was a success IIRC) !

My idea for a staging is to use something like Upsilon's design, but instead of a fuse (very imprecise) you could build a lightweight igniter from a chronometer, a battery and two nails for electrodes.. that will give you a nice spark wich can be used for both stage separation and 2nd stage ignition !

[magnemoe]

Your design would likely work for most rockets, and probably even this one, however the fuse would have to be the perfect length for a near-perfect timed staging. But I like the concept and I think this idea should be further looked into by LBSP. Your comment on not needing a flight computer, however, is illogical. How else would the rocket navigate, keep communications with ground control, handle all its cameras, etc etc etc?

Firework rockets works this way, fuse on top who ignite and set of an charge at top who ignite and expel the payload. Yes they are more precise made.

However if you made the fuse holes at the outer edge of the top plate this upper corner should contain the last pieces of fuel to burn and the stage is almost burned out.

You should want to do an hot separation anyway for stability.

Is should be posible to ensure separation is to put the upper stage in an cup on the lower stage, this should generate an overpressure and seperate the stages.

This might be dangerous but remember launching small firework rockets by dropping them in the tubes for the guild pin for large ones.

In this setting you might simplify the pins in holes to an simple framework over the cup for structural stability.

[Neil1993]

Your ISP is acceptable for a booster up to about 30,000 feet, but beyond this you will need a fuel with a higher ISP. Your aerodynamics are unsuitable for a low mass you will have to lower the coefficient of drag considerably. This occupation has a high risk and a low chance of success.

I couldn't agree more. The current vehicles designed by LowBudgetSpaceprogram lack the craftsmanship and efficiency to survive any kind of actual flight. As well, from what I've seen, his propellant preparation methods lack in any kind of safety precautions. I would recommend turning to model rocketry. It requires a relatively low budget, provides procedures and motors that would reduce risk to your person, and will get you much better performance on a much shorter timescale.

[mardlamock]

You dont seem to know much about building engines and stuff, someone with experience might just be able to make into space, but you have more chances of losing your fingers due to CATO.