PDA

View Full Version : Functional Model Saturn V



NEOWatcher
2008-Jul-14, 04:12 PM
Auto body repairman by day - rocket scientist at night (http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=93004&catid=45)

Cool...


It's a 36-foot model rocket, a 1/10 scale replica of the Saturn V rocket that propelled the Apollo 11 crew to the moon in 1969.
And yes, Eves does plan on lighting his model rocket candle. The launch could take place by next Spring.


I hope to see more updates...I'd love to see the launch (too bad he's going to MD to do it).

Rant: Bottle rocket?

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-14, 04:33 PM
It looks like a beautiful rocket. Personally, after all that money and work, I might be afraid of flying it. There are so many ways his beautiful model can come to grief. Still, I'd love to see it fly.

Now, we need to get some (more) of these talented rocket builders working on liquid fueled engines...

Gemini
2008-Jul-14, 04:47 PM
I hope it flies as good as the N-1 that flew a few years ago.

matthewota
2008-Jul-14, 04:49 PM
There is no need to fly such a large amateur rocket. Model rocketeers have been flying smaller (and safer) scale Saturn rockets since the 1960s.

Amateur rocketry is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.

NEOWatcher
2008-Jul-14, 05:03 PM
...Amateur rocketry is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.
...and fun.

I think the same can be said about most hobbies.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-14, 05:16 PM
Amateur rocketry is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.

So is driving. Or just about anything else that we do.

mike alexander
2008-Jul-14, 06:26 PM
Zero to 500 mph in one second?

Forget the model, get those engines.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-14, 06:50 PM
Yeah, that sounded a bit out to lunch.

djellison
2008-Jul-14, 07:07 PM
Amateur rocketry is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.

Ever been to a movie? Expensive, wasteful and dangerous. Ever been on a roller coaster? Expensive, wasteful and dangerous. Ever been at 66 mph in a 65? Expensive, wasteful and dangerous. Ever done ANYTHING that wasn't sleep, get up, go to work, go home, eat, pay bills, go back to bed?

Expensive, wasteful and dangerous all of it.

But FUN. You should try it!

This guy has built a beautiful model that will highlight the anniversary of Apollo, the engineering behind it, and perhaps a kid or two will be inspired to study maths and engineering. But to be honest, who cares. He's having fun, and I can't wait to see the results!

mugaliens
2008-Jul-14, 08:01 PM
Personally, I'd like to design, build, and strap on my own personal rocket that would shoot me a couple miles up, breaking the sound barrier, where I'd arc into a plunge back to Earth. Before velocity built up too much, I'd deploy the speed brakes, then the drogue. At 5,000 AGL I'd jettison the shell At 4,000 I'd pop the release, and the drogue would extract the main ram-air canopy which would bring me gently back to Earth.

mike alexander
2008-Jul-14, 08:11 PM
You do realize you are clear, coon-dog crazy, don't you, Mugs?

ravens_cry
2008-Jul-14, 08:16 PM
I hope it flies as good as the N-1 that flew a few years ago.

I hope it flies better then the REAL N-1.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-14, 08:28 PM
I've heard that someone, perhaps Armadillo Aerospace (http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home) has something even better in mind. They're wanting to put a skydiver into a space suit, put him/her on top of one of their rockets, and launch. The skydiver would separate and parachute down while the booster lands for another flight. They're talking about starting at relatively low altitudes (say 40,000 feet) and gradually increasing the altitude all the way to 100 kilometers.

In addition to the obvious thrill seekers who'd want to do this, one of the idea's backers is the widower of one of the astronauts killed on Columbia. I'll see if I can find a link to the story from a couple years ago.

KaiYeves
2008-Jul-14, 08:46 PM
I hope it flies better then the REAL N-1.
That's not hard to do.

Frantic Freddie
2008-Jul-14, 09:45 PM
Amateur rocketry is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.

So is:
Rock climbing
Hot air balloning
Car racing
Motorcycle racing
Boat racing
Water skiing
Four-wheeling
Jet skiing
Downhill skiing
Scuba diving
Hang gliding
Getting up in the morning & driving your car to work.

Swift
2008-Jul-14, 09:47 PM
So is:
Rock climbing
Hot air balloning
Car racing
Motorcycle racing
Boat racing
Water skiing
Four-wheeling
Jet skiing
Downhill skiing
Scuba diving
Hang gliding
Getting up in the morning & driving your car to work.
You forgot one other item.....
BAUTing! :D

Frantic Freddie
2008-Jul-14, 09:57 PM
You forgot one other item.....
BAUTing! :D
Well,it ain't expensive or dangerous,but it sure is wasteful! :lol:

cjl
2008-Jul-14, 10:45 PM
There is no need to fly such a large amateur rocket. Model rocketeers have been flying smaller (and safer) scale Saturn rockets since the 1960s.

Amateur rocketry is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.

You mean like this one (http://www.vatsaas.org/rtv/arsenal/teamrocs/saturnv/command_module.aspx)?

(This one (http://www.polecataerospace.com/1_16_scale_soviet_n1.htm) was neat too :))


In case you can't tell from the avatar, I am into high power rocketry

Nicolas
2008-Jul-15, 06:53 AM
These rockets (large scale N1 or Saturn model) look just like the real thing, too bad they accelerate waaaaay too fast compared to the real one. But that's physics for you, not much you can do about it.

That British "car shuttle" did accelerate quite slowly. But that one wasn't large, it was huuuge. And cool :). (and dangerous, wasteful and expensive. Of course it was, that's the concept of Top Gear! :D)

cjl
2008-Jul-15, 02:46 PM
The hardest part about those as far as the acceleration is concerned is that if you made them actually accelerate like the real thing, they would be unstable. All of these models rely on passive stabilization, rather than active, so to be stable, they need to be moving fairly fast when they clear the launch guide.

Nicolas
2008-Jul-15, 09:18 PM
Yes. And the Top Gear shuttle, as far as I've seen, had active stabilisation. But I'm not 100% sure about that. They didn't go in details and it's been a while since I've seen it. Possibly it stabilized because of the distance between the 3 thrust points, but still I think it wouldn't have ascended that nicely at its low speed without active stabilisation.

cjl
2008-Jul-15, 09:30 PM
I'm pretty sure it relied on the fins only. I know how to contact the guys who actually helped them out with it though - I can see if I can find out for sure.

matthewota
2008-Jul-16, 05:44 AM
I did, from 1974 to 1984. Dropped rocketry for astronomy. Much more cost effective.


Ever been to a movie? Expensive, wasteful and dangerous. Ever been on a roller coaster? Expensive, wasteful and dangerous. Ever been at 66 mph in a 65? Expensive, wasteful and dangerous. Ever done ANYTHING that wasn't sleep, get up, go to work, go home, eat, pay bills, go back to bed?

Expensive, wasteful and dangerous all of it.

But FUN. You should try it!

This guy has built a beautiful model that will highlight the anniversary of Apollo, the engineering behind it, and perhaps a kid or two will be inspired to study maths and engineering. But to be honest, who cares. He's having fun, and I can't wait to see the results!

Neverfly
2008-Jul-16, 05:55 AM
I did, from 1974 to 1984. Dropped rocketry for astronomy. Much more cost effective.

Don't know what kind of observing equipment you've been buying..
For me- astronomy is expensive.

The amount of money I can dump on books alone could equal two rockets.
Then toss in some scopes, computers, construction materials...

These days, I'm just a stargazer with Big Dreams....http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/46.gif

You know... Another hobby I love is Model Railroading. It, too, is expensive and Very Time Consuming! It is not dangerous really... But it is the other two.
I can imagine a lot of people would think it was a total waste- but to me- It's Pure Love. It's passion...

I love steam, the history, the raw power of it. I love the resourcefulness of it.
The determination, the engineering...
matthewota, Maybe rocketry modeling wasn't as fulfilling for you as it is for others. It isn't to me either, for the one basic reason others have said. They are like goldfish.
You get them, place them in a bowl, feed them and then come home and they're belly up. It's like... I just got to know you and now I have to say goodbye...
If I built Model Rockets, I would never have the heart to Launch the stupid things. I'd end up making some pathetic rocket museum in my garage and attic.

The dang things shoot up too fast and then- Goodbye. It isn't my thing. At least my trains stick around and say hello to me every morning. The worst that happens is every blue moon I need to replace some brushes or bearings.
But for others, it's that passion. That history, the determination, the engineering...

djellison
2008-Jul-16, 11:37 AM
Much more cost effective.

Ahh - you see - you can't put a price on fun. The fact that you're trying to, imho, means you've not had enough of it.

And as for obserational amateur astronomy- that's second only to owning a boat as a means to consume vast swathes of cash.

Doug

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-16, 12:48 PM
Ahh - you see - you can't put a price on fun.

I can put a price on my fun (my airplane) but I prefer not to look too closely. That's getting harder with avgas being so expensive.

Damburger
2008-Jul-16, 01:00 PM
There is no need to fly such a large amateur rocket. Model rocketeers have been flying smaller (and safer) scale Saturn rockets since the 1960s.

Amateur rocketry is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.

So is life, and both are lots of fun!

ToSeek
2008-Jul-16, 03:01 PM
Zero to 500 mph in one second?

Forget the model, get those engines.

That's not particularly impressive. Small rockets (and by small I mean anything smaller than a V-2) have a tremendous thrust-to-weight ratio. Your typical sounding rocket can be 20 kilometers up 30 seconds after lift-off.

cjl
2008-Jul-16, 03:29 PM
You sure about that number? It sounds a bit high.

Of course, a while back, I pulled zero to mach 1.8 in 1.2 seconds with one of my rockets, so it's definitely possible.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-16, 03:57 PM
You do realize you are clear, coon-dog crazy, don't you, Mugs?

Yep!

:lol:

Nicolas
2008-Jul-16, 04:32 PM
Off topic, but since when is ToSeek a "Vulcan Moderator"? :D

mugaliens
2008-Jul-16, 05:44 PM
You sure about that number? It sounds a bit high.

Of course, a while back, I pulled zero to mach 1.8 in 1.2 seconds with one of my rockets, so it's definitely possible.

I've pulled zero to Mach 2.6 in approximately 0.002 seconds with one of my rounds, so that's definately possible, too. That's 0 to M 2.6 in 1/500th of a second.

The elk I hit with that 150 gr Nosler Ballistic tip didn't know what hit him.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-16, 06:13 PM
The elk I hit with that 150 gr Nosler Ballistic tip didn't know what hit him.

I am regarded by some people to be at least moderately more intelligent than an elk, yet, I think i wouldn't have known what hit me either.

cjl
2008-Jul-16, 07:10 PM
I don't know about that Neverfly - have you met the elk around here?

:whistle:

BigDon
2008-Jul-16, 07:47 PM
I know a man who survived a full sized .308 round through the left pectoral from an NVA sniper. He didn't know what hit him either. A weird dislocation where he was one place one moment, then coming to in medical days later.

Damburger
2008-Jul-16, 09:00 PM
I know a man who survived a full sized .308 round through the left pectoral from an NVA sniper. He didn't know what hit him either. A weird dislocation where he was one place one moment, then coming to in medical days later.

There's offtopic, there is really offtopic, and there is turning a thread about amateur rocketry into a story about some guy you know getting shot in Vietnam.

Congratulations :)

Torsten
2008-Jul-16, 10:24 PM
Okay then . . . bringing it back to the cost of hobbies - inspired by the subtheme of the high cost and waste of model rocketry:


And as for obserational amateur astronomy- that's second only to owning a boat as a means to consume vast swathes of cash.


I can put a price on my fun (my airplane) but I prefer not to look too closely. That's getting harder with avgas being so expensive.

When I arrived back home with my (then) newly purchased plane, a fellow who owned a local "airline" (180s, Beavers, Otters, Grumman Goose - about a dozen aircraft in total) asked me "Why'd you do that, you may as well stand here on the dock and throw your money into the water".

(Hmmmm, must be getting old - told the same story (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/46540-anyone-w-private-pilots-license.html#post820674) a while back . . . .)

I've owned my Meade ETX-90 "classic" for 10 years, and have bought a few accessories for it, such as a solar filter, and the prism that enables more convenient daytime viewing. It's about the best satisfaction I've had per dollar spent. On the other hand, my venture into lunar photography using that scope and a camera I already own, while costing me next to nothing, seems to have turned the night sky here permanently cloudy.

And, come to think of it, when I was making bottle rockets with my kids a few years ago, I was having a lot of fun. And that was cheap.

cjl
2008-Jul-16, 10:48 PM
Rocketry can eat up as much money as you're willing to throw at it though, from $2/flight estes stuff, all the way up to many thousands of dollars for one flight of an admittedly huge and spectacular rocket. My personal record was with the rocket in my avatar (different flight though), which ate up around $350 for one flight.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-17, 12:46 AM
As for acceleration, the Nike Sprint missile is supposed to have lifted off at 300 Gs! :eek:

cjl
2008-Jul-17, 04:24 AM
300? I seem to recall 100, but either way, it's absurdly fast.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-17, 04:34 AM
300? I seem to recall 100, but either way, it's absurdly fast.

OK, I stand corrected. But at "only" 100 Gs, it reached Mach 10 in 5 seconds!

cjl
2008-Jul-17, 08:16 AM
It still amazes me :)

I like this video of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLpLEgAS574

Only the middle video is full speed - the others are slow motion.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-17, 12:39 PM
When I arrived back home with my (then) newly purchased plane, a fellow who owned a local "airline" (180s, Beavers, Otters, Grumman Goose - about a dozen aircraft in total) asked me "Why'd you do that, you may as well stand here on the dock and throw your money into the water".

My rationalization is what I told my wife. I don't smoke. I don't gamble. I don't do drugs. I very rarely drink. And I definitely don't mess with other women. Any one of those things can be a lot more expensive than what I pay to own, operate, and maintain my 40 year old Cherokee.

You can't just live for retirement because you might not make it there. You have to have some fun along the way.

Nicolas
2008-Jul-17, 12:56 PM
You can't just live for retirement because you might not make it there. You have to have some fun along the way.

So very true. And that is exactly why I am planning to buy a pair of waaay to expensive Tannoys today, waaaay too soon after other large purchases.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I only live once. I've got the money, I'm alive now, that's the perfect mix of conditions to buy them. I won't need them when I'm dead, I won't buy them without money.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jul-21, 04:47 PM
Off topic, but since when is ToSeek a "Vulcan Moderator"? :D
I guess since Maksutov was made an Honored Member the admins have played a bit with their new knowledge.

publiusr
2008-Jul-21, 08:34 PM
Now for a 1/10 Ares V.

Fazor
2009-Apr-22, 07:07 PM
I knew this (http://i.gizmodo.com/5219723/largest-scale-model-rocket-in-history-blasts-off-on-april-25th) had to be on here already. Apparently, they'll be launching it on the 25th. Hopefully there will be some good You Tube video to come out of it.

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-23, 09:16 PM
Wouldn't the 16th of July be more fitting?

Fazor
2009-Apr-24, 01:48 PM
Wouldn't the 16th of July be more fitting?

Why?








. . . Just wanted to see your head explode. ;)

Swift
2009-Apr-24, 02:04 PM
Actually, if the thing blows up, July 4 might be the most appropriate. ;)

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-24, 08:24 PM
If two periods with the kids in my Chemistry class didn't make my head explode, that won't, either.

cjl
2009-Apr-25, 08:57 PM
The flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4l2aFkZ_VM

http://rocketdungeon.blogspot.com/2009/04/steve-eves-saturn-v-rocked-marylands.html

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-25, 10:43 PM
Awesome! The model rockets we made at Space Academy look like pipsqueaks in comparison. (We didn't even get to recover ours!)

mike alexander
2009-Apr-25, 10:47 PM
All right, that was COOL. Me 'ats off to those guys!

JonClarke
2009-Apr-25, 11:04 PM
It looks like a beautiful rocket. Personally, after all that money and work, I might be afraid of flying it. There are so many ways his beautiful model can come to grief. Still, I'd love to see it fly.

Now, we need to get some (more) of these talented rocket builders working on liquid fueled engines...

Larry, meet my friend David who builds liquid fueled engines for a hobby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njrfMAm0mkA


Jon

Gemini
2009-Apr-26, 03:41 AM
That was beautiful.

Doodler
2009-Apr-26, 04:11 PM
Amateur rocketry is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.


The principle mechanics of modern rocketry that drive every space program in existance were born of the work done by hobbyists working in their own personal time.

:mad:


Nice one on the launch, too. I was a little disappointed, I was hoping the second stage would have been powered.

Larry Jacks
2009-Apr-26, 07:44 PM
Very impressive launch. I admire the builder's dedication and craftsmanship. Any report on damage during the landing? One of the parachutes didn't open.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Apr-26, 08:30 PM
The flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4l2aFkZ_VM

http://rocketdungeon.blogspot.com/2009/04/steve-eves-saturn-v-rocked-marylands.html

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWU5PLhU6k&feature=related) tracks the rocket in flight until deployment of parachutes.

Middenrat
2009-Apr-27, 02:54 AM
Very impressive launch. I admire the builder's dedication and craftsmanship. Any report on damage during the landing? One of the parachutes didn't open.
I can report the First Stage made a perfect soft landing, to the extent it remained perpendicular at rest!
One of the chutes' lines became entangled on a stabilising fin, so the reverse parking was pure luck, it must be said.
@ Doodler, I'm guessing the second stage was a 'blank' to satisfy Civil Aviation altitude limitations, not to mention the huge problems posed to an amatuer in staging (but I bet he could do it anyway).

geonuc
2009-Apr-27, 09:07 AM
Nice one on the launch, too. I was a little disappointed, I was hoping the second stage would have been powered.Now, that would have been impressive. Still, pretty cool.

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-27, 01:18 PM
The flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4l2aFkZ_VM

http://rocketdungeon.blogspot.com/2009/04/steve-eves-saturn-v-rocked-marylands.html
Let me suggest the second link. They seem to be accumulating (or have accumulated) multiple videos and stills.
You don't see the flight in that first one.

Anyway; That was actually a news story on the radio this morning on a local station here. It's great that people noticed.

cjl
2009-Apr-28, 06:57 AM
I can report the First Stage made a perfect soft landing, to the extent it remained perpendicular at rest!
One of the chutes' lines became entangled on a stabilising fin, so the reverse parking was pure luck, it must be said.
@ Doodler, I'm guessing the second stage was a 'blank' to satisfy Civil Aviation altitude limitations, not to mention the huge problems posed to an amatuer in staging (but I bet he could do it anyway).

The lack of a second stage was probably not altitude related. It is amazingly difficult to do a multi stage Saturn V and have the second stage fly straight. I've seen it attempted a couple of times (on smaller scales than this of course), and it never flies very well after staging. Besides, they have a pretty decent altitude window at most launches - the club I fly with has a standing 20,000 foot AGL waiver, with available windows to 35,000 feet for example.

matthewota
2009-Jul-04, 11:47 PM
Amateur rockets by nature are dangerous. Back when it all started in 1982,the nomenclature was LDRS, meaning Large and Dangerous Rocket Ship. The name stuck there are LDRS Tripoli meets to this very day.

Biggest thing I flew was a five engine G cluster, before I got smart enough to realize the expense was not worth it.

Astronomy is chepaer after you get your equipment. Rocketry requires continuous expenditure on engines.

kleindoofy
2009-Jul-05, 01:22 AM
Amateur rockets by nature are dangerous. Back when it all started in 1982...
1982??

We were flying Estes rockets back in the 60's. Lot's of fun!! Of course nothing like this job NEOWatcher built.

One time we thought we'd have fun launching at night (no recovery possible), so we glued fins and cones right onto the engines and went down to the beach. The fun stopped when the Coast Guard came and almost arrested us. Their station was only a few hundred yards away. duh! :doh:


... Dropped rocketry for astronomy. Much more cost effective.
Well whoopie to you!

Gemini
2009-Jul-05, 02:35 AM
Amateur rockets by nature are dangerous. Back when it all started in 1982,the nomenclature was LDRS, meaning Large and Dangerous Rocket Ship. The name stuck there are LDRS Tripoli meets to this very day.

Biggest thing I flew was a five engine G cluster, before I got smart enough to realize the expense was not worth it.

Astronomy is chepaer after you get your equipment. Rocketry requires continuous expenditure on engines.

That's why just about all of my rockets are low power, paper affairs.

Nicolas
2009-Jul-05, 07:35 AM
Amateur rockets by nature are dangerous. Back when it all started in 1982,the nomenclature was LDRS, meaning Large and Dangerous Rocket Ship. The name stuck there are LDRS Tripoli meets to this very day.

Biggest thing I flew was a five engine G cluster, before I got smart enough to realize the expense was not worth it.

Astronomy is chepaer after you get your equipment. Rocketry requires continuous expenditure on engines.

Didn't you make this exact same post, or one very similar to this one a while ago in another model rocketry thread?

And for many people "requiring continuous expenditure" is a given for a hobby, not a problem. But that was also replied to that other post.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jul-06, 05:33 PM
We were flying Estes rockets back in the 60's. Lot's of fun!! Of course nothing like this job NEOWatcher built.
I wish...
I just provided the story.

Although; I did do a few Estes in my day.

matthewota
2009-Jul-06, 06:02 PM
Estes is still in business. Centuri, which was a competitor in the 60s and 70s, is gone.

Gemini
2009-Jul-06, 07:22 PM
Estes is still in business. Centuri, which was a competitor in the 60s and 70s, is gone.

Some of their designs are still produced by a company called Semroc:
http://www.semroc.com/Store/Scripts/default.asp

also, Steve Eve's Saturn is going to be displayed at the Space and Rocket Center in the Davidson Center for Space Exploration.

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-06, 10:11 PM
also, Steve Eve's Saturn is going to be displayed at the Space and Rocket Center in the Davidson Center for Space Exploration.
Oooh, when?

Gemini
2009-Jul-06, 10:43 PM
Oooh, when?

Thursday

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-07, 10:34 PM
And how long will it be on display?

(I can totally picture the response being "Until Friday".)

Gemini
2009-Jul-07, 11:02 PM
He's donating the rocket to the museum so I think It may be there to stay (fingers crossed)

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-08, 09:41 PM
*Crosses her fingers as well*

Gemini
2009-Jul-14, 01:45 AM
Thread at collectspace:
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000478-2.html

cjl
2009-Jul-15, 04:15 AM
Well, I recently got back from this year's LDRS (it was the 28th annual one, held in Potter, NY over the July 4 weekend), and Steve Eves was there with his Saturn V. Heck of an impressive rocket, that's for sure. It didn't fly - it was just for display, but even so, it was incredible :D

I'll have some pics pretty soon.

As for the "dangerous by nature" comment, there have only been a few fatalities in the history of NAR or Tripoli launches (the national organizations supporting amateur rocketry). Every one of them has been unrelated to the rockets themselves, and most (if not all) are related to attempts to retrieve a stuck rocket from a power line. I'd hardly call that all that dangerous of a hobby. As for the LDRS name, it's in large part lighthearted, and in no way meant to imply that there is a large amount of danger in the launch.

cjl
2009-Jul-16, 04:34 AM
OK, here are the pics of the Saturn that was on display at LDRS. It was pretty incredible: