Lightweight 54-38 2-stage sims to space

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Adrian A

Well-Known Member
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
3,316
Location
Lakewood, CO
I have been making some pretty light 38mm rockets, but this post:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...omposite-case-38mm-rocket.183709/post-2523215

showed me that I could be a lot more radical in my weight savings. In particular, this rocket got to Mach 5 by replacing the commercial Al motor case with an integrated motor case/body tube. Which got me to thinking.

The Loki 38-1200 motors are awesome, the highest impulse 38mm motors available. The build quality is great, and they have survived a lot of my abuse. But the Al case is not particularly light; it seems to have been designed with quite a bit of margin. Dropping an empty CTI Pro38 case from a table onto concrete can render it unusable. Not so with the 38-1200. What if I took the awesome K627 reload, which already requires bonding the grains into the nice Loki phenolic liner, and laid up a carbon fiber motor case around the liner, that also becomes a body tube? Could that help enough to get a space shot on a 2-stage 54-38mm rocket?

With a sustainer build the way I have been doing for record attempts, including a J1026 flight to over 24 kft, and with similar build style on the booster, I get about 280k for a simulation of a Loki M1378 to K627. This is with smooth paint and biconic fin profile options. But if I can take 1/2 lb off of the rocket (the 38-1200 motor case is 14 oz) by replacing the body tube and the Aluminum motor case with a single composite layup, which also reduces the rocket OD down to about 1.50", the sim goes up to 388k. This is with a sustainer all-up mass of 3 lbs. For comparison, the K627 with the aluminum case, by itself, is 2.75 lbs.

1719027974843.png
1719028048777.png

This was a quick and dirty set of modeling to satisfy my curiosity, and I'm sure there are at least minor errors.

But this is pretty encouraging. For years I have had a very long-term goal to do a space shot. This strategy has the potential to save years off of my timeline, and thousands of dollars. I mean, these are motors I have in my garage already, right now.

An M1378-K627-K627 3-stage sims to ridiculous altitudes, by the way.

I'm not planning to mix motors, ever (I'm a messy builder and don't trust myself with AP and fuel in my garage), but laying up an adequate composite case around the K627 reload with its liner is something I can do, or at least I'm pretty sure I can figure it out and verify it with some test burns on the ground. I know I can use using Cotronics 4461 epoxy to make some nice thin, light, carbon fins that stand up to Mach ~3 at low altitude, without a blemish. Whether they can stay smooth after Mach 5.5 at 48 kft is unknown, but I'll hopefully get a lot closer to testing that out with my planned 38mm 3-stage attempt at Balls this fall.

So now my plan is to continue my 38mm multi-stage plans for this season, and then get ready to do some ground test burns after that to validate how much lighter I can make a K627 sustainer, with an eye toward making a space shot attempt at Balls 2025. Oh, and I need to get my L3 certification in there somewhere. Maybe this year at Balls after I send a 3-stage 38mm rocket over 100 kft. .... I kid. Maybe. Tis the season for running sims and dreaming.
 
Interesting project. Do you need to be a L3 to attempt a Class 3 flight? Not sure I've ever heard that being a requirement...
 
Interesting project. Do you need to be a L3 to attempt a Class 3 flight? Not sure I've ever heard that being a requirement...
Class 3 is over 40 something KNs, and you do need an L3 cert. You are required get a >100kft flight reviewed by the class 3 committee even if it’s class 2 impulse. I did that last year.
 
Feel free to dm or @ me in this thread if you want a review of a design or anything. I happen to have made a lotta composite case motors and also had a lot of them burn through :)

IMG_1487.jpeg

Theres some different concerns than with aluminum tubes which arent immediately obvious.

Theres also some advantages, like that carbon is stronger theoretically so you can drop the casing OD and therefore reduce drag as well
 
What would you do for apogee verification? As far as I know the GPS chip in the Featherweight GPS only works up to 80km. If you do come up with something that works above 100km, would you plan on selling them?


Edit: Also check out what kind of speed and altitude you can hit with a single stage composite case M1378. It might be a bit terrifying...
 
Last edited:
Feel free to dm or @ me in this thread if you want a review of a design or anything. I happen to have made a lotta composite case motors and also had a lot of them burn through :)

View attachment 652046

Theres some different concerns than with aluminum tubes which arent immediately obvious.

Theres also some advantages, like that carbon is stronger theoretically so you can drop the casing OD and therefore reduce drag as well
Thanks. I think I'll start a thread on this topic in the research area if there isn't an appropriate one already.
 
What would you do for apogee verification? As far as I know the GPS chip in the Featherweight GPS only works up to 80km. If you do come up with something that works above 100km, would you plan on selling them?
Very good question. This may motivate me to finally look into options for unlocked GPS. I admit I'm selfish here and I have figured there aren't enough customers to justify it from a business perspective. But if I'm one of the customers, that changes the equation. :)
Edit: Also check out what kind of speed and altitude you can hit with a single stage composite case M1378. It might be a bit terrifying...
I'm not currently planning to go for the composite case on the M1378; I don't think it will be necessary for what I want to do. But I'll take a look for fun. Flying the booster as a "single stage" is probably how I will get my L3 cert. I'll see if my TAP is o.k. with flying my cert flight with the booster as a single stage but with a heavy, skinny nosecone that has its own recovery.
 
If you want more examples to pore over, I'm 4/4 on successful composite case motors. A ~2" motor roughly equivalent to a 54/2000, a ~3" similar to a 76/6000, a ~3" motor the same size but with a moonburner, and another ~3" for a flight vehicle. I used my filament winder to make the motor cases, but they absolutely could have been made out of sleeve or roll-wrapped and still had good safety factors. Happy to answer any questions about the designs.






If you are surprised that the 3" rocket "only" made it to 35kft, it was just a mid M and much of the mass that was saved by using the composite case then went into a very heavy nosecone/avionics setup. RAS Aero calculated an optimal mass of 14 lb and said it would reach 40kft if we hit that, but it came in a bit over 15 lb. With a longer motor (full M) the mass fraction would have gone up significantly and the altitude easily could approach 50kft, even with the heavy nosecone.
 
Interesting work Adrian.

One idea I have been toying with is to record the GNSS raw data and post-process it for position after landing. I have a SDR unit that I can acquire the satellites with and record the raw data.

Some GNSS chips can provide the raw data which can be saved to EEPROM or FRAM. Compact solution I think.

Unlocked GNSS receiver would be technically easier but more spendy. I think they are about $7k AUD down here.
 
Last edited:
Whether they can stay smooth after Mach 5.5 at 48 kft is unknown, but I'll hopefully get a lot closer to testing that out with my planned 38mm 3-stage attempt at Balls this fall.

So now my plan is to continue my 38mm multi-stage plans for this season, and then get ready to do some ground test burns after that to validate how much lighter I can make a K627 sustainer, with an eye toward making a space shot attempt at Balls 2025. Oh, and I need to get my L3 certification in there somewhere. Maybe this year at Balls after I send a 3-stage 38mm rocket over 100 kft. .... I kid. Maybe. Tis the season for running sims and dreaming.

Adrian,

How much different will the design be of this years 3-stage attempt be than last year's Stratospear? I see you improved the 'chute cannon', but I am curious as to if you will be using different motor combo's than last year.
 
Adrian,

How much different will the design be of this years 3-stage attempt be than last year's Stratospear? I see you improved the 'chute cannon', but I am curious as to if you will be using different motor combo's than last year.
It's the same motors, and the sustainer will have the same fins. The booster airframes will be rebuilt, but basically the same way except stronger shock cord (which broke in 2023), but the booster innards are otherwise still available for re-use.
 
Adrian,
After this balls launch will you be moving to a 4 fin design or will you still use 3 fins for the space shot? I know your tower is setup for 3 fin but I imagine moving to 4 fin would be beneficial for a few reasons.
Good question. At these speeds I agree that 4 fins have an advantage for reducing flutter risk. I'm happy with the performance of my current 3 fins at Mach 2.5 speeds, but it's hard to know what will happen as the sustainer gets pushed faster.

At the moment I'm not convinced that the difference between 3 fins and 4 is worth the time and money it would take to switch over my tower, my fin alignment tooling, and booster stages that I could still use with a composite motor flight. But I'll think about it more. Thanks for bringing this up.
 
Back
Top