Thanks. I"m glad you appreciate it. We had a good day.

Thanks. We had a lot of fun doing it this year.

Roughly, about 11 G's on the first stage, 7 G's on the second, and 20 G's on the third. It was nice to have it all work as planned.

Love the spin can. I didn’t feel like I was gonna puke watching this one!

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jd6Je5h0vcjUiXU.html

YEAH DID you see that obvious earth curvature they show you at the 4:02 mark of the video when it was only maybe 3000 feet off the ground...........???? PRICELESS, LAUGHABLE, FUN. he he he.

Is ThE eArT rOuNd

You do realise that the large amount of curvature observed in the footage is due to the wide-angle camera lens used? Had a 'normal' camera lens been used, the amount of curvature would have been much less than what's shown here.

You do realise that the large amount of curvature observed in the footage is due to the round camera lens used? Had a 'normal' square camera lens been used, the amount of curvature would have been zero compared to what's shown here. Nice try, but you sir, can't fool a flat earther.

Yes I agree. The earth is round

there is none awkward..............

Thanks Mike. I read that your flight didn't go quite according to plan, but it sure looked good "live". Great work!

It survived the ascent, proved my case design and the apogee events worked. I'm very happy about that, and while it's in a hole, at least I know where the rocket is! :) DDT3 here we come! Thank you!

It is certainly resonance. and it is certainly tumbling upward. I haven't been able to visualize the actual motion. The path of the motion does not repeat (as coning would do) and sometimes it is pointed downward. My best guess is sort of a waivy flat spin with a constant roll rate, if that makes sense. Very interesting whatever it is.

I did an L3 certification for a 70-year-old man in a wheelchair. He had a lot of family support, but it was a great accomplishment. Don't give up!

I don't really know where MaxQ would be. I suspect it would be close to the end of the 3rd stage burn where the speed is the highest. That's certainly the point in the flight where I was wincing and expecting the worst! That was at around Mach 3.3 I believe. The rocket went pretty high, but I consider it to be more of a technical flight than a high altitude flight. The rocket isn't something stripped down to the minimum to get maximum altitude possible.

Thanks. It's a bit more complicated. The stabilization system between the first and second stages oriented the rocket vertical by the time the second stage lit. Later, the rocket weathercocked into the jet stream, getting as far as 5 miles out, but then drifted back when it came back through the jet stream, ending up 3 miles out. But, if you're not vertical when the second stage lights, you can be 30 miles out in a flash.

@@Jiminaus50 Is there a system in place to prevent the firing of the second stage if the rocket isn't able to properly stabilize? Additionally, if a rocket going to that altitude were to get off track in a big way, are you able to track it still, or would it just be lost to the desert at some point? I'm interested in the controls that you had to implement when preparing for this. Also, very impressive. Bravo, and thanks for sharing.

@@connorreilly238 The second stage has an altimeter that measures the tilt of the rocket. If it's over a set value (9 degrees as I recall in this flight), the second stage will not fire. The rocket has fps telemetry so as long as you can get a hit, you will know where it is. Range isn't infinate, and depends on the brand, but I have had hits from 30 miles horizontal. If the tracker is just a radio direction finder, it gets increasingly difficult to locate as it gets further away. Every now and then, you lose one.

​@@Jiminaus50 Makes sense, and thanks again.

Here's a link to the project overview for his guidance section (which prompted his development of the spinning tail unit): www.rocketryforum.com/threads/i-could-use-just-a-little-guidance.122042/

The stabilization module is an IMU, not unlike an RC airplane autopilot, except modified in many ways for rockets. The development of this can be found on "The Rocketry Forum" under the thead "I could use just a little guidance". The module is intended to straighten the flight during the coast after the first stage burn. The spin can is required to prevent "control reversal", where vortices from the canards interact with (in this case) the fins on the first stage. Control reversal can cause the rocket to spin in the opposite direction of the intended path. A spin can is one way to solve this problem.

Do the fins spin on their own or are they driven?

The problem is that you would then have to go to two bazillion. Not possible...

It is ammonium perchlorate composite, like the space shuttle boosters.

Thanks! It was a good day.

There is an FAA waiver, and I believe a TFR for this particular launch. So, no planes around. Once above 40K feet, there aren't any planes or anything else.

Sure. The FAA puts a TFR in place for the launch. In addition, I my own certificate of authority from the FAA after they review the project. No big deal, except that there are only two places in the country where such a flight could take place.

@@Jiminaus50 Thanks

"Space" is considered to be at around 328,000 feet. But this flight was about technical difficulty and not altitude.

@@Jiminaus50 Thanks.

@winnie evad Maybe this fall....

Don't mind at all, but it's not a simple answer. If one were to build the rocket and pad from scratch, all of the equipment might end up costing $20K, plus or minus. And, there is a lot of time invested (for example, all of the carbon air frame tubes are hand made), In reality, though, most of the parts are recycled from prior flights such that the costs during the year of the flight aren't that much. Travel is by far the biggest cost. No permit or club costs to speak of.

@@Jiminaus50 Thanks! I've got my own moonshot goal of 100k ft. Working on level one and 2 cert first.

That is pretty much the case. There is still air resistance though. During the tumbling part, starting at 140,000, there was still air resistance and the tumbling cost some altitude.

It is ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Commercial motors.

Which formula was the 3rd stage? I saw that the 1st was a C Star and the 2nd was a White Moonburner, but I couldn't find the M1401. And a very impressive flight

It started at about 130 lb and max thrust was around 1500 lb.

@@Jiminaus50 Awesome, thank you. So, you had an excellent TWR==1,500/130==11.53. Right?

Pretty close ...

@@Jiminaus50 Great: Next launch, I suggest you add a trained-Mouse-Astronaut (MouseTronaut) to see if it survives the many Gees! BTW: any idea what Max-G it reached?

@@rolandlemmers6462 What about insects, small lizards, corrupt politicians, etc?

It maintains stability until somewhere around 120-140K. If it is going perfectly straight with no roll, it might go much higher. But, at some point, if there is any roll or coning, it will devolve into end-over-end tumbling. The idea for rockets that are not intentionally spun is to keep them from tumbling long enough so that the onset of tubling doesn't cause the air frame to fail. The longer you can hold off tumblng, the higher you will go. This flight lost about 10K due to tumbling. I have another that started earlier that probably lost 70K or so.

Do you have any plans to experiment with non-aero stabilization systems like yoyo despin (might not sit well with safety) or a reaction wheel for the 3rd stage ?

You can find information on this flight and similar flights here. www.rocketryforum.com/threads/so-maybe-ill-try-a-three-stager.66850/

Great! Thanks for the resources, also can i have your email id. just in case if i want to contact you. ​@@Jiminaus50

Thanks. I figure the tumbling caused a loss of about 10K feet. Not all that bad.

Preventing "control reversal" which can turn the rocket in the opposite of the intended direction. Can find info on Google.

Why should the earth rotate underneath it? And I wonder: If you think that the earth rotates underneath something just because it has left the ground, then you don't need a rocket for that. You would not even land on the same spot when you just jump in the air.

One word: "Sylvester"

@@pianoraves You get yours from the ACME Rocket Company too? - Wil E. Coyote.

Not that I know of.

This rocket didn't reach space. Space officially starts at 62 miles above the earth's surface. The rocket got to 33 miles.

There are diagrams of the design in my thread "So, maybe I'll try a three stager" on the rocketry forum. Basically, the fins are on a separate tube that rides on about 150 tiny ball bearings. It's cheap to make, but you have to be able to roll a tube of the proper ID for the fin can. Here is a video that shows exactly how the spin can works. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/edp9p7yQ27neiIU.html

Hit the roof of the world? What roof? There is nothing up there. If you want to have that view, you can just look up from down here, what should change? The view up is boring, there is nothing. Here is a "dashcam video", so of a camera mounted on a Space Shuttle facing forward : kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sM6letqC1p3Vip8.html

@@sebastiannolte1201 There is nothing in the shuttle video because it is all fakery.

@@PYTHAGORAS101 Oh, of course, always the same with you guys - You: "There are no videos of XYZ, I want to see it" - Me: "Of course there are, here is one" - You: "It is fake" Why do you even ask for a video? You would just say fake to everything that is provided to you. And what should be faked about that Shuttle video and why? And why would you accept a video facing upwards making with this rocket? Or would you? And again, when you want to see what's up there YOU JUST CAN LOOK UP! I also read of people in the comments of videos made from orbit who say "Why do they only show the earth all the time, why not the look to space?" Weird question. The view to earth is the only interesting thing. So imagine you are in a rural area at night, total clear weather. You lay down on your back and see all the beautiful stars. But now your bed that you are resting on is lifted up to 100 meters. Would the view be different? No, it would be exactly the same like from the ground. Then up to 1000 m. 10 km. 20 km. 50 km. 100 km. 500 km. 1000 km.... Do you think the view would change? No, it would not. Why should the view change? You think at one certain altitude it would be different? What altitude and why?

Ammonium perchlorate, like the space shuttle

@@Jiminaus50 thank you! Any binding, like epoxy?

@@Jiminaus50 Shuttle is NOT a rocket. Please see clips & documentation at my name-link!!!

@@Jiminaus50 For some proofs that Shuttles, Apollos, Soyuz, SpaceX have all bee fake-rockets, please read the comment at this link, which you can access by copy-pasting the whole link into a browser, in which you are NOT logged in KZfaq, otherwise, it does NOT take you to the comment, but to the video itself::: Copy-Paste:: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jtqWoc-QsLXZc4E.html&lc=Ugz_P_sEXb6hB19YV494AaABAg

You should just watch the video 3 times, or maybe 4? But thanks for the feedback.

Lol I was thinking the same thing

Send $$$'s

Lots of info here: www.rocketryforum.com/threads/so-maybe-ill-try-a-three-stager.66850/

This is a video, not a technical paper. Right? If you were actually intersted in the flight, you could start here. www.rocketryforum.com/threads/so-maybe-ill-try-a-three-stager.66850/page-19#post-1816687

Sphinx Rising While people like this are contributing and furthering science and engineering, people like you are sweeping their floors and taking out their trash. Keep it up as we need peasants to do the unskilled jobs.

A distorting lens has been used. Even curved lines can appear to be straight in some parts of the footage. You're not actually trying to imply that the earth is flat, or anything stupid like that, are you?

@@sailorman8668 Can you really believe that all that graphic art is the real deal either? The weight ~ density theory actually has greater logic than a high speed spinning ball which defies physics to start with.

@@rodbrown8306 The earth spins once on its axis every 24 hours - how is this 'defying physics'?

@@sailorman8668 So we are moving at 2,000 kph in a left to right? But the clouds just hang or blow about on any given day?

@@rodbrown8306 Oh dear, it seems you didn't understand too much in your science class at school, lol. Although, I suspect you didn't excel at any school subject. The atmosphere moves with the earth' as it rotates - how does this 'defy physics'? Please try and keep up with the rest of the world my dear. Incidentally, if it's not the earth's rotation that accounts for why the sun moves in the sky, perhaps you can offer another alternative? I can't wait to see what sort of delusional response you come back with, lol. Yep, here it comes.......................

it's not a fish eye lens. It's a wide angle lens,(most likely a gopro) shot out a pinhole in the side of the metal airframe.

Camera is just a muvi veho MD10. Not very expensive (but mounting expensive cameras in high-altitude rockets isn't a very good idea). It offers some advantages for mounting and operation. Specs say 170 degrees. I'm a little surprised it is that wide, but it is what it is. Enjoy!

@@Jiminaus50 The GoPro camera allows you to swap out the standard wide-angle (hugely distorting) lens and replace it with a 'standard' lens. This would have shown the 'true' curvature of the earth.

Actually, I think those types SHOULD be shown this. If it encourages them to try, and they help clean the gene pool, well, Win, WIN! Just my $0.02 anyway. LOL