![]() ![]() We'll be talking with John Beans of Jolly Logic, maker of several model rocket altimeters, and an exciting new product - the Chute Release, which enables a model rocket to do something similar to dual deployment, but without black powder charges.Īnd another episode I'm thrilled we'll be recording this week will be with Mike Westerfield, author of the book Make: Rockets: Down-to-Earth Rocket Science. This week, we are recording two exciting episodes. The motors are on a gimbal - just like a real space launch vehicle. The rocket is stabilized by thrust vectoring. Seen are two motors - a large one for ascent, and a small one for recovery. ![]() We're working on a longer story about Joe Barnard's project, a finless, actively stabilized rocket using thrust vectoring, which he is attempting to land using motor thrust for recovery - just like SpaceX and Blue Origin. We've been on a roll with this season, and we have more exciting stuff coming up. ![]() I was worried I talked CG and Gheem's ears off, but the episode turned out pretty good. And, as I said before, I'm not a master at OpenRocket, but I know enough for a beginner to be reasonably accurate.įirst thing, I start OpenRocket, and open the original RockSim file, downloaded from the Apogee Components website. But they're pretty good, and much better than guessing. There are just too many variables to account for in the physical flying environment. I think I should mention that as good as rocket simulators are, they're almost never 100% accurate when it comes to altitude prediction. There's more to it than just watching something go up and come down. That's part of what makes rocketry interesting. Then I can look back at the simulation and figure out how I might make the predicted altitude more accurate. I can see how close to the predicted altitude the rocket actually flew. I can then also compare the simulation to the data from actual flights, recorded on the altimeter. I can then make a more informed decision whether to put A, B or C motors into the rocket, depending on how high I am willing to let the rocket fly on launch day. Running a flight simulation will give me a rough idea of how high the rocket will fly with different motors. And if I fly an altimeter in the payload compartment, that could be an expensive loss. On a particularly breezy day, a high flight increases the likelihood that I will lose one of the models I'm proudest of. Depending on weather conditions - wind, mainly - I might decide to put different motors in the rocket. Sometimes I look at the CG on a RockSim or OpenRocket file, and wonder can that really be right?īut more importantly, I want to be able to run flight simulations before I actually go out to launch the rocket. The first is curiosity: I want to see how accurate OpenRocket is in finding the correct Center of Gravity (CG) when I load different motors. Why do I want to do this? A couple of reasons. Now, I want to fix the simulation in OpenRocket to reflect the actual model. The actual model is finished, stable, and ready to fly. This is kind of an addendum to the previous two posts on repairing the Quest Magnum Sport Loader and then verifying its flightworthiness. The shortened simulation of the rocket shows stability to be marginal - only 0.627 caliber.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |