Making a rocket to beat all other rockets

[Snark]

This thread has been extensively pruned to remove:

• off-topic rants
• personal attacks
• trolling
• backseat moderating

If someone's interested in building their own rocket, that's a great topic for these forums-- we'd love to leave this discussion open for a lively exchange of ideas.  However, if it can't stay on track, and shows that it keeps derailing and exploding, we're going to have to lock it, which would be sad.

So, in the interest of (hopefully) keeping things on track, here are a few tips for everyone here:

• Please be civil.  Deliberately goading people is not okay.  If you have something constructive to contribute-- for example, pointing out a flaw in someone's reasoning-- that's fine.  But just laughing at them, mocking them, etc. is over the line.
• Address the post, not the poster.  It's perfectly fine to point out flaws, logical inconsistencies, etc. in what a person says.  But please don't extend commentary to the person themselves.  It's unhelpful and generally spirals into flamewars.
• Do not backseat moderate.  Making decisions about what is (or isn't) okay is for the moderators, not for you.  If you think something is rule-breaking, just report it, which will ping the moderators so we can decide whether any action is required.  It's what we're for.

All of the above are good bits of general advice, for everyone, all the time-- not just for this thread.

A few bits of advice, for this thread:

 

To the OP, @alpha tech:

Please understand that these people are trying to help you.  This is a helpful, friendly community of rocket enthusiasts.  They're exactly the people that you should be talking to!  I'm sure everyone wants you to succeed.  I can tell you seem frustrated with many of the responses you're getting.  Please understand that when people who are trying to help you raise very important concerns (such as safety), and you respond dismissively, they're getting frustrated, too.

Nobody wants to help a person hurt themselves or others.  Big rockets are incredibly dangerous.  They are, in fact, more dangerous than you appear to think they are.  They can kill you.  They can kill anybody standing nearby you.  That can happen even with a simple test.  If you successfully launch one, they can come down and kill innocent people miles from you.  That's why people are so persistent and passionate in this thread:  they're worried about the safety of you and anyone else who could be injured or killed.

Nobody in this thread has suggested anything unreasonable or excessive.  They're trying to help.  If you'd like to continue receiving helpful input from them, the best way to do that is to acknowledge what they've said, and address their concerns.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, of course-- just, if you choose to dismiss well-meaning advice from people who know what they're talking about, then you're going to keep getting responses like you've been getting.

 

To the various people responding in this thread:

Glad to see that there's concern for safety, as well as lively interest.  I'm glad that so many people are trying to help-- it's one of the things that's great about the KSP community.

It's great to point out safety concerns.  It's great to point out technical difficulties.  However... please try to contain your irritation.  If you're getting frustrated to the point that you can't contain your anger, just don't post.  Don't mock, insult, or belittle people; it's unhelpful.  Certainly, if the goal is to actually help someone, and to get them to listen, and maybe modify their plans for the better, then an aggressive confrontational approach is counterproductive.

Before you post something, best to ask yourself:  Is what I'm going to post actually constructive?  Will it (or, at least, could it) help anyone?  If the answer is "yes", then by all means, post.  But if it's just responding to anger with anger, or poking fun at somebody... that doesn't help anyone.  Best to let it lie.

 

Okay, gonna re-open this thread, in the (hopefully well-founded) expectation that the KSP forums can show us their better side and continue this conversation constructively.  Please don't make me wrong, folks.

 

Thank you for your understanding.

[Aethon]

That's an adorably idealistic plan, but you'll never make it happen.  I can see from reading your responses above that you have a lot to learn.

Now if you use this as an opportunity to learn more about rockets and how difficult they are to build, great. 

Edited February 18, 2017 by Frybert

[Steel]

If you're genuinely serious about wanting to do high-performance amateur rocketry, the way I'd suggest going is this (ideally with some help/guidance from people who have done this stuff before):

1. Build and test a small-scale engine. Follow the thread below exactly, build a small rocket engine and get to grips with the complexities involved.

2. Scale the engine up. Build bigger and bigger engines, one step at a time. Bearing in mind that if your end goal is the first ever amateur launch to orbit, you're going to have to single handedly develop the largest and most powerful amateur rocket engine ever, so just keep scaling it up.

3. Once you have an engine that works, then you can start to think about making a rocket to go with it. By all means use melted down drinks cans to make the our skin, but for structural components, tanks e.t.c (components where small flaws in your manufacturing process will be catastrophic) i'd use material made for industry.

[munlander1]

You live in the U.S. The faa (federal air administration) has restricted model rocketry. They have limited the amount of propellant, weight, and materials! You NEED To READ THIS.

http://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/filing-for-faa-launch-authorization/filing-for-faa-waiver/

and then to go into space, well @Tristonwilson12 knows about getting the permits for that.

[Tristonwilson12]

I have absolutely nothing against this, but i must say, launching a rocket like you are doing without FAA permits is a $20,000 fine and you can go to jail, the permit process takes about 6-8 months.

[kunok]

I myself I'm trying to be somewhat constructive, even thinking that he is extremely underestimating the difficulty of this project.

@alpha tech if you need manufacturing advices just ask, because you don't seem to know what do you really need to manufacture a rocket. For a start, what machine tools have you in your shop?

Have you any foundry equipment? Probably buying high grade aluminum will be cheaper that buying all the related equipment and making all the experiments in doing that alloys from soda cans and other elements, especially taking into account the electricity costs. The bigger material problem probably will be getting high temp alloys, not high grade aluminum

Developing materials is hard, don't add another level difficulty to something that is already very difficult as a rocket design and manufacturing.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Frybert

[Frybert]

Some posts have been removed. Once again please refer to Snark's post above.

[NSEP]

On 17 February 2017 at 11:22 PM, Snark said:

This thread has been extensively pruned to remove:

• off-topic rants
• personal attacks
• trolling
• backseat moderating

If someone's interested in building their own rocket, that's a great topic for these forums-- we'd love to leave this discussion open for a lively exchange of ideas.  However, if it can't stay on track, and shows that it keeps derailing and exploding, we're going to have to lock it, which would be sad.

So, in the interest of (hopefully) keeping things on track, here are a few tips for everyone here:

• Please be civil.  Deliberately goading people is not okay.  If you have something constructive to contribute-- for example, pointing out a flaw in someone's reasoning-- that's fine.  But just laughing at them, mocking them, etc. is over the line.
• Address the post, not the poster.  It's perfectly fine to point out flaws, logical inconsistencies, etc. in what a person says.  But please don't extend commentary to the person themselves.  It's unhelpful and generally spirals into flamewars.
• Do not backseat moderate.  Making decisions about what is (or isn't) okay is for the moderators, not for you.  If you think something is rule-breaking, just report it, which will ping the moderators so we can decide whether any action is required.  It's what we're for.

All of the above are good bits of general advice, for everyone, all the time-- not just for this thread.

A few bits of advice, for this thread:

 

To the OP, @alpha tech:

Please understand that these people are trying to help you.  This is a helpful, friendly community of rocket enthusiasts.  They're exactly the people that you should be talking to!  I'm sure everyone wants you to succeed.  I can tell you seem frustrated with many of the responses you're getting.  Please understand that when people who are trying to help you raise very important concerns (such as safety), and you respond dismissively, they're getting frustrated, too.

Nobody wants to help a person hurt themselves or others.  Big rockets are incredibly dangerous.  They are, in fact, more dangerous than you appear to think they are.  They can kill you.  They can kill anybody standing nearby you.  That can happen even with a simple test.  If you successfully launch one, they can come down and kill innocent people miles from you.  That's why people are so persistent and passionate in this thread:  they're worried about the safety of you and anyone else who could be injured or killed.

Nobody in this thread has suggested anything unreasonable or excessive.  They're trying to help.  If you'd like to continue receiving helpful input from them, the best way to do that is to acknowledge what they've said, and address their concerns.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, of course-- just, if you choose to dismiss well-meaning advice from people who know what they're talking about, then you're going to keep getting responses like you've been getting.

 

To the various people responding in this thread:

Glad to see that there's concern for safety, as well as lively interest.  I'm glad that so many people are trying to help-- it's one of the things that's great about the KSP community.

It's great to point out safety concerns.  It's great to point out technical difficulties.  However... please try to contain your irritation.  If you're getting frustrated to the point that you can't contain your anger, just don't post.  Don't mock, insult, or belittle people; it's unhelpful.  Certainly, if the goal is to actually help someone, and to get them to listen, and maybe modify their plans for the better, then an aggressive confrontational approach is counterproductive.

Before you post something, best to ask yourself:  Is what I'm going to post actually constructive?  Will it (or, at least, could it) help anyone?  If the answer is "yes", then by all means, post.  But if it's just responding to anger with anger, or poking fun at somebody... that doesn't help anyone.  Best to let it lie.

 

Okay, gonna re-open this thread, in the (hopefully well-founded) expectation that the KSP forums can show us their better side and continue this conversation constructively.  Please don't make me wrong, folks.

 

Thank you for your understanding.

Thank you! Thats exactly what i thought while reading this thread.

[YNM]

Doing rocketry from scratch does sound a fantastic idea. But doing rocketry (and explosives, that's what rocket fuels are) from scratch had tolled many lives as well.

Please, learn from them and their experience, unless you want to risk increasing the lengthy memorial as well. And I believe most of those are off-wire (not on the .net), or even in secrecy.

(1300 post !)

Edited February 20, 2017 by YNM

[munlander1]

To do what he wants, he gonna have to use apc and aluminum. Which that mix burns perfusly at a mild pressure. At high pressure it explodes. If he did not design his engine correctly it gonna 1 chuff 2. Explode in a large fire ball sending debris everywhere. Hopefully at a small altitude as to avoid a large debris cloud.

[Spaceception]

@alpha tech

I recommend you take a look at some of these rockets, and base your design on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-lift_launch_vehicle

Particularly this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_4S As it's probably close to the size that you will be building.

And like many have said before, start small, and work your way up slowly, don't go big yet, or you'll literally crash and burn. I mean, you want to go into orbit!

Some of the best engineers on the planet have been doing this for decades, and they still make mistakes, please learn from them, ask for help from actual rocket scientists who have years of rocketry experience (Not amateur rockery, think NASA level, you're talking about building an orbital rocket, ask for help from people who build those for a living), the KSP forums don't count (Unless there's some on here) do your research, and take as many safety precautions known to the human race as possible, don't become arrogant, or you'll get yourself hurt, or worse. This is dangerous stuff and is one of those things you don't want to screw with.

With that being said, I think this is a pretty cool idea, I wanted to do something similar a few years ago, but we didn't so much as make a palm sized rocket, but that wasn't because of safety issues, I just couldn't figure out how I was going to get money for any of it, and I was naive to a lot of things.

By the way, how many people are working with you? What's your gameplan/milestone calendar, how much money have you put towards it so far, and what's your progress?

Edited February 20, 2017 by Spaceception

[YNM]

15 hours ago, munlander1 said:

To do what he wants, he gonna have to use apc and aluminum. Which that mix burns perfusly at a mild pressure. At high pressure it explodes. If he did not design his engine correctly it gonna 1 chuff 2. Explode in a large fire ball sending debris everywhere. Hopefully at a small altitude as to avoid a large debris cloud.

He wants to do it with liquid fuel engine I thought ?

But yes, solid motors are actually easier to navigate and operate (not to build - both are complicated in different ways). Look up SS-520-4 - you don't need to tell where it should be heading in apart from between burns. And it's easier to enter some elliptical orbit than some circular one.

[Kerbart]

On 2/17/2017 at 1:44 PM, alpha tech said:

remotely controlling our craft is another thing unless orbital decay but we have to dual coat the heat shield and have all of the components in a ball and coat it and have a heat shielding coat on it and a parachute recovery system. but I would like a controlled recovery system. preferably a splash down with floats.

A guided missile, you say?

Boy, are you in for a lot of fun... You're rapidly moving into ITAR territory with that.

[munlander1]

59 minutes ago, YNM said:

He wants to do it with liquid fuel engine I thought ?

He said the bottom stage was gonna be a solid and the upper stage liquid.

42 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

A guided missile, you say?

Just add a warhead!

[Steel]

52 minutes ago, munlander1 said:

He said the bottom stage was gonna be a solid and the upper stage liquid.

Just add a warhead!

Nope, he said he wanted a liquid first stage and solid upper stage!

[munlander1]

33 minutes ago, Steel said:

Nope, he said he wanted a liquid first stage and solid upper stage!

Whoops

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Boy, are you in for a lot of fun... You're rapidly moving into ITAR territory with that.

License for such aren't impossible to get - for example SpaceX has (will have) one for Dragon, but they aren't cheap or easy to get...  especially on an amauter hour budget.

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

License for such aren't impossible to get - for example SpaceX has (will have) one for Dragon, but they aren't cheap or easy to get...  especially on an amauter hour budget.

Well, yeah, exactly. I remember listening to a podcast of some university team that was building an advanced amateur rocket and they emphasize that they had stabilization hard- and software on board, which was totally different from a guidance unit. Because that would get them in ITAR territory.

We can laugh about it but it's not so funny when you get an unexpected visit; definitely something to keep in mind once you start building something that's a little bit more advanced than a metal tube with some fins at the end.

[munlander1]

37 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

stabilization hard- and software on board

So it just maintained the attitude of the rocket at launch? Could your link some info please?

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Well, yeah, exactly. I remember listening to a podcast of some university team that was building an advanced amateur rocket and they emphasize that they had stabilization hard- and software on board, which was totally different from a guidance unit. Because that would get them in ITAR territory.

Just to be clear here...  ITAR only applies if you're sending the information or equipment out of the country I.E exporting or publishing or making it available or acessible by other means to foreign nationals.  (Which has an unfortunate chilling effect on the more professional rocketry discussion fora and lists.)

ITAR isn't really relevant to this discussion though, there's a different licensing scheme that covers domestic vehicles and launches.

[Kerbart]

9 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Just to be clear here...  ITAR only applies if you're sending the information or equipment out of the country I.E exporting or publishing or making it available or acessible by other means to foreign nationals.  (Which has an unfortunate chilling effect on the more professional rocketry discussion fora and lists.)

I will rescind my words then. Thank you for clarifying that.

To the OP: go completely bananas on any guidance (remote or built-in), it's totally ok. Nobody will take any offense to it!

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

To the OP: go completely bananas on any guidance (remote or built-in), it's totally ok. Nobody will take any offense to it!

Well, aside from some national security and/or anti-terrorist agencies...

[munlander1]

So wait guided rockets are not illegal?

I not gonna attempt anything, just curious.

[cubinator]

1 minute ago, munlander1 said:

So wait guided rockets are not illegal?

I not gonna attempt anything, just curious.

I'm sure there's still plenty of bureaucracy you need to trudge through to do it, though.

[munlander1]

1 minute ago, cubinator said:

I'm sure there's still plenty of bureaucracy you need to trudge through to do it, though.

I am kind of glad about that I guess. I mean I am sure @alpha tech had good intentions, but if it failed it could kill a lot of people. And then there's the part about keeping the crazy's away from this stuff. I don't think they would listen though.

Edited February 21, 2017 by munlander1