Gaseous Oxygen and Propane Rocket Engine Machining and Test

by Richard Garcia, Director of Research, Reaction Research Society, published on RRS.ORG, January 20, 2019

(*) The following report was originally written in early 2014 and a December 2013 static test of the rocket discussed herein.  I had originally intended it for a future RRS newsletter that never came about.  So, I’m just putting it up here (on the RRS.ORG website).  Better late than never. (*)

Simple, quick, easy and cheap are not words that describe liquid propellant rocket engines (LPRE).  And while working on some LPRE’s, I’ve been itching for a bi-propellant rocket project that would be simpler, cheaper, easier and above all, would materialize more quickly than the projects I was already working on.  A gaseous oxygen and propane engine using parts from a brazing torch is what I came up with.  (More of an igniter than an engine itself, really.)

I had one of those small brazing torches you see at hardware stores that use the handheld propane and oxygen bottles.  I had been thinking of using it for the basis of a rocket for a long time but I was hesitant for two reasons: I didn’t want to cut up and lose my torch, and secondly, I couldn’t find an adapter for the oxygen cylinder that wouldn’t (excessively) restrict the flow.  Making one didn’t sound like it would fit my criteria.  The  need for a pin to depress the release valve on the tank in the adapter is what pushed it past what I think I could easily machine, also my lathe can’t make the required reverse threads.

Bernzomatic brazing torch, WK5500 model, from Home Depot
Example of a brazing torch, the Bernzomatic WK5500 available at Home Depot. Comes with a propane bottle and an oxygen bottle with a torch device to mix the fuel and oxidizer gases and discharge them through the tip. Torch is lit by the welding sparker device shown at the bottom right.

After further delays with another one of my rocket projects, I was thinking about basing an engine on the torch again. I realized that if I could live with the flow restrictions I could use the valves already on the torch.  I could cut the feed line tubes and put fittings on both sides.  That way, I could use the tanks and valves for a rocket and still be able to put the torch back together.  So, I went to work.

DESIGN OF THE ROCKET

Beginning the design, I was immediately faced with the complication that I no way to measure the flow rates of the gases. So I decided to work the math backwards from the usual way.  (And will therefore omit the details so as not to give anyone else any bad ideas.)  Instead of selecting the thrust and using that to determine the needed flow rate and appropriate nozzle dimensions, I started with the throat size.  I had recently discovered a site that sells the same nozzles that are used in the high-powered rocket motors like AeroTech.

www.rocketmotorparts.com (site no longer available)

www.aerotech-rocketry.com

These nozzles are made of a molded phenolic resin fiberglass composite.  I picked a type that looked like it would be simpler to machine a retaining ring for, and a size that would be good for the Chromoly tubing that I had on hand that I wanted to use for the chamber.  After those criteria, I was left with about three nozzle throat sizes.  The nozzles were only a few dollars each so I picked a size that seemed about right knowing that it would be easy to switch it out and try different nozzle sizes if I didn’t like the results.  For sizing the chamber, I used an L-star (L*) value of 75 inches.

During the whole thing, I was never concerned much about performance parameters, like thrust or specific impulse.  I was working with low flow rates and low pressures. The propane bottle delivered around 100 psi, but the oxygen bottle delivered only 10 psi. So I used, a regulator to reduce the propane pressure to the oxygen pressure and went with a 10 psi chamber pressure.

I wanted a straight-forward ignition method.  I had never made any of the sort of pyrotechnic igniters that have often been used with amateur liquid propellant rocket engines.  So instead, I decided I would try a glow plug, the kind they use on radio-control (RC) model piston engines.  I wasn’t sure it would work under the conditions in my rocket so I got one and gave it a test by seeing if it would light a propane hand-torch.  It did.  So  I went forward with the glow plug.  I wasn’t worried much about hard starts.  Because of the low pressure and low flow rates, I knew the chamber could take the worst case combustion instability or hard start, which would be more of a pop than any sort of explosion.  (The chamber could withstand around 4500 psi before bursting and the operating pressure was 10 psi.)

RC model engine sized glow plug igniter with seal
An example of a radio-controlled (RC) model engine sized glow plug igniter shown with sealing ring. In essence, a very small version of an automobile, lawnmower or motorcycle spark plug. Positive electrical connector is the barbed fitting, the main body and whatever it is threaded into is the electrical ground. When supplied with electrical power, the thin platinum wire heats up.

I wanted some sort of ablative liner for the combustion chamber.  A phenolic resin and fiberglass composite chamber.  A phenolic resin and fiberglass composite would have been my first choice.  I figured that it would be a bit of overkill for this engine.  I also wanted something I could get produced quickly.  After taking note that PVC has been used as a fuel in some hybrid rocket engines, I thought that it would make a suitable combustion chamber liner for a rocket like this and potentially for other small rockets.

After my design was finished and I was putting the finishing touches on building the rocket, I was sending information about the rocket to the RRS pyro-op in charge of the upcoming test, Jim Gross.  Naturally, he wanted to know the expected thrust.  Somewhat embarrassed, I hadn’t bothered to calculate it.  I hadn’t given it much thought for this project since thrust and performance was beside the point.  I knew that at most it would be getting a few pounds of thrust and I didn’t worry about it.  So, I sat down and did the calculations.  I knew it would be small but it came out to be only a gram of thrust.  Well, this motor won’t be getting anything off the ground any time soon, but at least it could form the foundation of an on-board restartable ignition system for a larger rocket engine.  It was also a fun practice project for a small thrust chamber design and construction.

Figure 1: Exploded view of the GOX-propane rocket.  The glow plug is not shown in the assembly.
Figure 2: GOX-propane rocket cross-sectional view.

Figure 1 shows an exploded view of the whole assembly except for the glow plug igniter.  Figure 2 shows the nozzle retainer bolts setting into the nozzle. This feature would require modifying the nozzle and I omitted it from the final design. I had been concerned about pushing the nozzle into the chamber but this turned out to be only a minor inconvenience during handling.

BUILDING THE ROCKET

I used a solenoid valve and a check valve that I already had on hand and ordered a matching pair online.  I used 1/4″ sized aluminum tubing I had and 45-degree flared fittings from the valves to the injector. I machined the injector from a piece of scrap brass I picked up back when I was in college. This was, incidentally, my first time machining brass and I was impressed with how easy it was to machine, I should have tried brass a lot sooner.

Finishing the injector and making the chamber is where this project got interesting. Normally, to make the injector holes at the required angles you would have to either do some fancy work in holding your injector work-piece, like a sine vise (which I didn’t have) and rotary table or use a mill, like a bridge-port type, with a tilting head (which my mill didn’t have) and a rotary table. I didn’t have any of the right tools and I wanted something easier, something that could be done using a simple drill press.

What I came up with is a fixturing system that takes advantage of the versatility of 3D printing. I had recently acquired an Ultimaker 3D plastic printer, so printing fixture parts was quicker, easier and cheaper. The basic idea is to create a slanted fixture that holds the injector at such an angle from the horizontal plane such that the injector hole being drilled is vertical. The fixture indexes from either a marked feature on the injector, or a second part of the fixture that would hold the injector and provides the rotational indexing features needed to place all of the injector holes. Such a fixture is able be able to hold the injector at several rotated positions. This removes the need other set up tooling. For multiple angles of holes in the injector multiple bases can be made. This allows the proses to be scaled up to more complicated injector designs without much additional effort.

This fixturing technique is only advantageous if you can use 3D-printing. If you had to machine the fixtures it would probably be harder than using the normal methods. Although this method would add fixture design to the task list it should make machining go more smoothly. Making the parts with a 3D printer is easy. The real advantage however is reducing the needed machine tools. All you need in a lathe and a drill press, although it never hurts to have more tools. Potential disadvantages include reduced rigidity (unless you go through the extra expense of having them printed in metal) and reducing the obtainable accuracy, although I think the accuracy you would get would be fine for amateur projects.

Slanted fixture assembly for drilling injector holes
Figure 3: Slanted fixture with clamping feature for angled drilling (45 degree) of injector holes

Figure 3 shows the 3-D printed angled fixture I made for drilling my injector.

Figure 4 is a figure of a generic design for such a fixture with a generic injector taken from Scott Claflin’s larger 1670 lbf LOX/ethanol rocket engine.

Figure 4: Scott Claflin’s injector hole drilling fixture (30-degree angle)
Figure 5: Flat fixture for drilling the oxidizer holes

A possible improvement over the shown designs is to incorporate drill bushings over the top of the injector to help locate the drill and reduce wandering, which can be a big problem when drilling on slanted surfaces. Additionally, the bushings could be cut to an angle to match the angle of the injector face to eliminate the gap between the bushing and injector face.

There are other ways to reduce the difficulty in drilling into the injector face. You could machine an angled face into the injector while it was being turned on the lathe so it would provide a surface perpendicular to the drill. That feature could either be left in or machined off after drilling the orifices. Also, the injector could be left with an extra thick face, and a flat area could be made with an end mill, again the feature could be left in or the face could be machined flat. Although both methods might complicate locating the orifices in the right location.

Compared to the figures shown, the fixture I actually used was more crude and needed some improvements. I also used similar fixturing to drill the bolt holes on the combustion chamber, nozzle retainer and injector. This 3D-printed fixturing concept will not work for everything but it has the potential to either reduce the difficulty of complex machining operations or to expand what you can do with simpler machine tools. Unfortunately, I did not take any pictures of the actual machining process.

TEST RESULTS

I did the static testing on December 7, 2013 at the Reaction Research Society (RRS) Mojave Test Area (MTA).  Firing day was an exciting experience.  It was the first time I fired a rocket engine that I had designed.  Things went pretty smoothly considering all the things that could possibly go wrong during a test firing.  The firing itself also went well save for a few issues.

Figure 6: Static hot fire of the GOX/propane rocket engine from the iconic I-beam at the RRS MTA

Video footage of the December 7, 2013, hot fire tests at the RRS MTA on YouTube.  My test is the last one in the series.

The buzzing sound that can be heard in the video was being caused by the check valves. They didn’t quite have enough flow to keep them fully open. This can also be seen effecting the exhaust flow in the video. I knew about this problem ahead of time from cold flow testing I did.  On a larger rocket, this issue could be a major problem by contributing to combustion instability and all the problems that can go along with that. With such small flow rates and low chamber pressure, I knew it wouldn’t be an issue for this engine. I was more worried about any propane getting into the oxygen system because of the large pressure difference between the tanks. With the launch date approaching, I didn’t have time to seek out better check valves for such low flow, so I went forward with the valves despite the flaw.

The second problem discovered during hot-firing was the significant amount of debris generated from the ablative liner partly obstructing the nozzle and canting the plume to one side. This is clearly seen in the video and progressively worsens throughout the burn.  So, it turns out that the PVC material doesn’t work well under these conditions, creating too many solid particles.  It was also evident that the PVC liner was emitting a noticeable odor.  The closest thing I would compare it to is burnt electronics.  The nozzle, itself, had very low ablation and looks fit to be fired a few more times once the debris was cleaned off.  If I ever fire this rocket again, I will try it without the ablative liner.  I don’t think it will cause a burn through so long as burn times aren’t excessively long.

Figure 7: Converging side of the nozzle showing the asymmetric, partial blockage from solid debris from the ablative liner being re-deposited
Figure 8: Looking inside the chamber, melted ablative liner generated a lot of debris in this small engine

I also noticed that the flame color was off from typical oxygen/propane engines I’ve seen. This is likely from an atypical propellant mixture ratio probably because of actual flow rates differing from what was expected from doing the math backwards and not being able to measure the actual flow rates.  The mixture ratio could be improved by either changing the injector orifice sizes or by adjusting the valves from the torch on the tanks. For this hot-fire test, I had both valves fully open.  From looking at the test footage, the amount of nozzle plume expansion looks okay, but if I were to try running the engine again, I would like to try some of the other available nozzle throat sizes and see if they do any better.

After running the engine, a noticeable film was left on the outside of the retainer. It has a copper and brass color. At first, I thought it was deposited from erosion of the injector. But after disassembly, the injector looked to be in excellent condition with no noticeable erosion.

Figure 9: Nozzle retaining feature, note how large the 6-32 screw heads are in this view

Visible in this picture is the brass coloration left on the nozzle retainer and the small but asymmetric amount of ablation of the glass-phenolic nozzle.

Figure 10: Post hot-fire GOX-propane injector with manifold seals and attached feedlines

CONCLUSIONS

Fire came out the right end, so it meets my criteria for a successful amateur rocket engine.  If I fire the engine again, I will do so with more appropriate check valves, a different nozzle size and run it without the PVC ablative liner.  The design has some potential as the baseline for an on-board, restartable ignition system for a larger LPRE, but would need to be redesigned, probably beyond recognition.  But the real takeaway for the project, besides being a fun learning experience, is the fixturing method that may make building impinging injectors easier to do.  I intend to try this fixturing system in future designs.

For questions, contact Richard:  research@rrs.org

MTA event, 2018-11-17

The Reaction Research Society (RRS) was glad to offer our Mojave Test Area (MTA) to UCLA for a series of tests of their liquid rocket. This was a private event, but Osvaldo and Elisa were there to witness a successful hot-fire series.

UCLA has been working on liquid rockets and this event was to test the improved version of their 650 lbf thrust LOX/ethanol engine. After validating minor modifications to the plumbing and an improved mechanism for their pneumatic valve actuators, UCLA expected good performance from this test with an expected burn time of 13.8 seconds and an expected total impulse of 9000 lbf-sec.

UCLA makes preparations on their liquid rocket, 11-17-2018 at the MTA

Other improvements include collecting better data. Data collection has been a challenge for many teams over the years. Tank, manifold and chamber pressure measurements were successful combined with thermocouples on the LOX lines for a better estimate of density and on the engine outer surface to anchor heat transfer assumptions. This temperature data has helped to better anchor their estimates of characteristic velocity (C*) and specific impulse (Isp). UCLA was not making direct flow rate measurements in this test, but has planned to do so in another forthcoming test.

UCLA’s liquid rocket in position

UCLA has also been giving their newer student team members opportunities on this project by passing knowledge gained from the more experienced members as turnover is a necessity with graduation.

UCLA liquid rocket hot fire way after sunset, 11-17-2018

Results from the hot-fire seemed to show that UCLA’s computational models were fairly close to actual performance. Total impulse was less than predicted at 8174 lbf-sec, average thrust at 467 lbf and peak thrust at 550 lbf, but a longer than predicted burn duration of 17.0 seconds.

These are good results but improvements can be made, particularly in getting direct propellant flow rate measurements. Both C* and Isp can be directly measured from propellant flow rate.

Further refinement of their assumptions based on this new hard data will help them in their next hot-fire planned for January 2019. The RRS is glad to assist UCLA and other universities with their liquid rocket projects at our Mojave Test Area (MTA). The RRS is ready to help UCLA take their next step in the new year.

We will surely discuss the results of this and the upcoming test of UCLA’s liquid rocket at the next RRS meeting, Friday, December 14th, 7:30pm, at the Ken Nakaoka Community Center in Gardena.

MTA launch event, 2018-10-27

The Reaction Research Society (RRS) held another launch event at our private testing site, the Mojave Test Area (MTA), on October 27, 2018. We had a really big day in hosting a launch event for Weigand Elementary School and supporting the projects of several of our members. This was one of the more perfect days for a launch. The day time temperatures stayed below 90 degrees Fahrenheit and the winds were nearly still the whole day.

Old Glory slowly waves in the light breeze of the cool late October morning in the Mojave Desert

Our pyro-op for the event was John Newman, of the Friends of Amateur Rocketry (FAR) group.

Friends of Amateur Rocketry – webpage

John allowed myself, Dave Nordling, and Larry Hoffing apprentice under him for the event as we are both in training to become licensed pyrotechnic operators in California.

John Newman (right) from Friends of Amateur Rocketry (FAR) talks with Mr. Oswald (left) and Dr. Kasparian (middle) at the RRS MTA, 10/27/2018

John Newman (left, behind the wall) and Larry Hoffing (right) oversee the loading of micrograin propellant at the RRS MTA

The RRS welcomed Weigand Elementary School and the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) Community Service Program (CSP). They had just finished the six session program and had ten (10) alphas ready to launch.

Frank Miuccio shows one of the two RRS blockhouses to the students of Weigand Elementary School

RRS member, Michael Lunny, had come out to the MTA the week before to help Osvaldo with mixing of the micrograin propellant. The simple mixture of zinc and sulfur powders is relatively safe, but requires time to properly mix and load. With the larger demand for alpha rockets with school projects and our growing membership, it’s no longer a process that can be done in the early morning hours before launch day.

Osvaldo Tarditti and Michael Lunny at the RRS MTA, 10/27/2018, having done the hard work of loading the rockets the week before

The ten alphas from Weigand Elementary and Michael Lunny’s alpha in white, all loaded, tagged and ready to go

RRS member Alastair Martin was at our event doing a great job in video-recording many aspects of our event. Alastair and Bill Janczewski, both newly elected to the position of Media Coordinator at the RRS, have been helping expand the presence of the RRS in social media and to the public at large.

Alastair Martin, armed and ready, in the RRS MTA blockhouse

Alastair gets his camera ready for the next alpha launch

Alastair got a lot of great shots and video-footage which I’ll share as they come in. Some of the short videos and photos from the 2018-10-27 event are already posted on the RRS Instagram page.

Follow the RRS on Instagram – ReactionResearchSociety

Just before the briefing, two of our new members had the chance to experience loading their own alpha rockets with the micrograin propellant. Xavier Marshall and Wilbur Owens were coached in the process and got a first-hand feel for classic micrograin rocketry. Michael Lunny’s alpha rocket was already set to go the week before when he helped Osvaldo load the ten alphas for Weigand Elementary.

Wilbur Owens loads his alpha rocket, one cupful at a time, gently bouncing out the air pockets as he goes

Once the alpha propellant tube is full of propellant up to the bolt holes, Xavier Marshall prepares to install his nozzle with the electric match and burst disk which retains the powdered propellant inside

A close-up view of the alpha nozzle with its plastic burst-disk and electric match resting on the interior side, the electric match wires protrude out the bottom (held back by carpenter’s tape just for convenience)

[SAFETY BRIEFING]

We conducted our safety briefing at the beginning of the event before all present. We discussed the many natural and man-made hazards to help everyone become aware and be more safe. John Newman made us aware of a native species of snake, the Mojave Green Rattlesnake, which is sometimes known to become aggressive when discovered. The Wikipedia page is linked below.

the Mojave green rattlesnake

Mojave Green Rattlesnake – Wikipedia

Frank also reminded everyone about keeping their distance from the Desert Tortoise, which is a federally protected species that is also indigenous to the Mojave desert and the MTA. It isn’t very common to see these animals during the height of the day, but everyone needs to be aware and take heed of their surroundings to protect themselves and the environment.

The federally protected Desert Tortoise

Desert Tortoise – Wikipedia page

Besides avoiding heat exhaustion and spiders, collecting and properly disposing of trash, and maintaining their hydration, all attendees must remain under the cover of our reinforced bunker during hazardous operations. With the conclusion of the briefing, we proceeded to a propellant demonstration to show the combustion process on a sample of composite propellant and micrograin powder.

Small sample of composite grain propellant burns hot enough to cut through the steel case supporting it, slow burning but very potent

The bright yellow plume of burning micrograin propellant, zinc and sulfur together go up pretty fast

The next step was getting everyone into the bunker, while John Newman conducted the event as our pyro-op. Larry and I were on hand to assist in the loading and readiness for firing. The RRS alpha had a steel box frame launcher which is our preferred method of guiding these speedy metal rockets up and downrange west.

We got started loading them into the rack by the numbers. The kids did a great job of painting them and making them their own. Most importantly, they label them with large numbers. The color of the fins matter the most since that is the only part left sticking out of the ground at the end of flight.

First of ten alphas right at liftoff

Same rocket just a few frames later

After launching all ten of the rockets, we all took our lunch break. The day was very pleasant, but we all enjoyed a little bit of shade. After lunch, LAPD CSP packed everyone up for the long drive to Los Angeles.

Frank talks with the kids of Weigand Elementary after having lunch after a great launch

[MEMBER PROJECTS]

We started working on membership projects starting with launching Michael’s alpha. It’s always rewarding to launch your first alpha and it’s an experience that never gets old. It’s usually one in a series to come. Big thanks to Michael for helping the society get ready for the event.

Xavier Marshall tried a new approach to launch by allowing me to use the fly-away railguide that I had customized for the 1.25″ RRS alpha propellant tube. Additive Aerospace makes many standard models which this one was derived from the 38 mm design.

Additive Aerospace – fly-away rail guides

Xavier Marshall’s RRS alpha clamped into the launch rails

Flyaway railguide clamped around an RRS alpha

Xavier Marshall inspects his first alpha as it sits on the rail

The first rail launch of an RRS standard alpha was successful. The flyaway railguide seemed to hold as the micrograin rocket sped off the rails. We took video from the facing side of the rail to get a better look at the operation. I was able to get one good still from my camera phone video from the blockhouse. You can see the railguide just above the fins as the rocket has cleared the rails so the flyaway railguide has sprung open and now is free to tumble away.

Xavier’s rail launched alpha rocket makes a clean path up the 20-foot guide, rail guide still seen near the rocket just after clearing the rail

The railguide fit to the alpha very well but the rail buttons were a little sticky as the rocket was slipped into place. I think the dusty aluminum rail is more to blame for this. The workmanship on these flyaway railguides from Additive Aerospace is quite good. Flying one of these devices with a micrograin rocket was expected to be challenging given the high acceleration that micrograin rockets are known for.

The railguide was not recovered intact. I recovered most of the pieces and the plastic end pieces showed fractures. It’s not clear if the railguide broke on the ground from the fall, but given the spread of the pieces, it could be possible the sudden acceleration of the RRS alpha fractured the lower clamp as the rocket took off. Review of Alastair’s video in slow motion may answer what the failure mode is. All pieces were recovered within 50 feet of the rail.

The recovered pieces of the flyaway rail guide. A successful launch but the mechanism didn’t survive for more than one attempt.

Jack Oswald and his team had a set of sample end-burner motors with their next batch of propellant for burn-rate testing. After setting up the first motor, a key part was missing and the pressure transducer had to be mounted too close to the exit plume. It was expected that the pressure transducer wouldn’t survive the first burn but the test was expected to take good data. The test was executed, but unfortunately the test over-pressurized due to the grain separating from its liner during the initial startup. A lot was learned but the other motors were not able to be tested.

Jack Oswald inspects his test motors as he moves them to safe storage before test

Jack’s BEM test starts out okay. A leakage stream is seen coming out the side.

Just a second later, Jack’s test rig overpressurizes and the nozzle plate pops off

My last photo taken of that day was the last of the three member alphas sitting in the box rails ready to go. Wilbur Owens had the honor of flying his first alpha rocket at sunset.

Wilbur Owens takes a picture of his first alpha ready to fly away

The sun setting at the RRS MTA, Wilbur Owens’ first alpha rocket sits ready to fly out of the rails

With the last of our thirteen alphas flying out, we proceeded with the first firing of the horizontal thrust stand built to test loaded alpha propellant tubes. Osvaldo made some modifications to my stout steel frame adapted to the concrete slab in front of the old RRS blockhouse. Dave Crisalli poured this concrete slab as a working platform in the 1970’s. USC in recent times drilled the slab with 1/2″ female anchor bolts to test small 50-lbf motors. It made sense to use this existing foundation for our horizontal thrust stand.

Matteo Tarditti installs the completed RRS horizontal thrust stand to the concrete slab

Osvaldo uses his 185 lbf son, Matteo, as a quick load cell calibration check as Jack Oswald observes the 1124-lbf ranged load cell output on the laptop in the blockhouse. Awkward, but effective.

After some initial software and operator problems with getting and keeping the S-type load cell calibrated, the system was ready to go.

It has been MANY years since the RRS had made direct impulse measurements of an RRS alpha micrograin rocket, but we felt this hardware would be useful for other similar projects in our near future. Although horizontal testing of a micrograin rocket is not indicative of the actual vertical flight, we felt we could still learn much from this testing.

A simple bottle jack (commonly used for changing an automobile tire) was used as a load cell calibration device (pressure gauge was damaged in handling)

We retreated to the blockhouse and got the testing underway. After two false starts from the bunker, we got the alpha motor to fire in the horizontal position and captured it on video.

The results were good in that the load cell readings were captured and the structure adequately retained the rocket in its very brief (0.4 second) thrust bit. Osvaldo crunched the numbers from the readings we got from the test. Load cell readings indicated we reached a peak thrust of 544 lbf. Burn time was only 0.4 seconds.

This is the raw data from the alpha firing in the (translating) horizontal thrust stand; we need more data

Results from the alpha static firing on 2018-10-27

The RRS is very grateful to Interface Force Inc. of Arizona for their generous donation of the S-type load cell we’re using.

www.interfaceforce.com

An S-type load cell, made by Interface Force Inc.

These devices are not very expensive ($350?? each) and are available in sizes from just 100 lbf to up to several thousand pounds. Button cells are more compact and also work well, but they tend to be more expensive.

The big surprise was that our concrete pad wasn’t as well secured as we had hoped. The pad was only 6 inches thick which means that the slab was only an inch or so beneath the surface. I do recall being told this slab poured by RRS member, Dave Crisalli, in the 1970’s, was only intended to be a working surface and that it wasn’t very deep. USC in recent times had drilled the pad with 1/2″ female anchor bolts for a small 50-lbf.

The concrete slab held fast initially, but suddenly broke free displacing itself by over half its length.

Another observation was that we get a little bit of gas leakage at the end of the burn at the bulkhead. This has been seen in other alpha flight videos and thus it wasn’t a surprise.

Despite the moving target of the whole stand moving, just after the alpha fires, you can see gas leakage at the bulkhead

Osvaldo did not see any damage to the seals when we disassembled the rocket from the stand. This may be a weakness of the seal design but it doesn’t seem to harm performance. More experimentation will shed light on this.

Check out the RRS Instagram page to see this footage. I’ll be uploading it to our YouTube page soon as Instagram has a 60-second time limit for video.

While we were conducting test operations at the MTA, Wilbur Owens located his rocket downrange and started the laborious process of alpha recovery by shovel. Osvaldo’s extractor tool has made short work of this step, but I don’t know if it was available that day?

[PROPELLANT DISPOSAL OPERATIONS]

Jack and his team had a quantity of unspent composite propellant which had to be properly disposed. He had quite a bit from a failed attempt to cast a previous motor that hardened too quickly. The RRS MTA is a good place to do this. With the low winds, we are able to safely touch off the two batches in the waning hours of the day.

The first burn was the smaller of the two. The sun had already set so we were losing the light fast.

The first propellant disposal burn was a bit brighter than I thought but manageable.

With the light almost gone, the second batch lit up the night just for a brief moment before fading.

2nd propellant disposal burn starts off with the last of the daylight fading at the MTA

The second propellant disposal burn at its brightest, but quickly fades as the burn safely completes

[IN CONCLUSION … THINGS COMING UP]

Frank had said that the LAPD CSP is looking to start the next school program in January of 2019. We are very grateful to the LAPD CSP for their continuous support to our classes. The RRS is proud to help the community by sharing the hobby we love.

As mentioned in our last monthly meeting, the next event with the RRS will be our visit to Chapter 96 of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). RRS members, Xavier Marshall and Wilbur Owens, invited the RRS membership to join them at their hangar at the Compton Airport on Saturday morning, November 3rd, at 10:00 AM. The RRS is interested in getting inexpensive shop space that is reasonably convenient to our membership residing in the Los Angeles area. The RRS is looking to help cultivate practical machining skills such as lathe work and milling. Many of our members already have these skills to some degree, but want to help other members become more adept at making their own nozzles, nosecones and other rocket parts.

The next RRS meeting will be November 9th at 7:30PM at the Ken Nakaoka Community Center in Gardena, California. We hope to have Jack Oswald and his team present their results. Despite the failure of the first and only sample hot-firing a great deal was learned which will make the next set of tests more likely to succeed.