This is where we’ll be keeping all the posts we’ve put up with any media in them. The most recent three show up complete and on the top. The complete list of links is at the bottom of the page.2020-02-23 19:27:09
by Dave Nordling, RRS.ORG
The California State Fire Marshal’s (CSFM) office held a sub-committee meeting to discuss potential changes to the definitions in the state laws concerning amateur rocketry. This meeting on Friday, 2/21/2020, at the CSFM offices in Monrovia was the second of two meetings held between CSFM and amateur rocketry representatives to informally discuss and review ideas for improvements. The laws had several ambiguities and areas for improvement which would better reflect the needs of our growing amateur rocketry community and provide for clarity and safety at all points.
The RRS was glad to host Ramiro Rodriguez, the state fire marshal of the local Hollywood office last year both at our February 2019 meeting and later as a speaker at the 2019 RRS symposium in April. The RRS and representatives from the Friends of Amateur Rocketry (FAR) and the Rocketry Organization of California (ROC) had met several times over the last calendar year leading to a consensus opinion on a few areas that would be presented to CSFM for consideration. Many of the ideas were with regards to fees, transportation issues and the different licensing classes of pyrotechnic operators for rocketry.
The RRS, FAR and ROC were glad to have the opportunity to speak frankly and give the state reasonable ideas that would preserve the freedoms in our hobby while keeping only responsible measures for assuring public safety as is required by CSFM.
CSFM will report their findings back to the home office in Sacramento and begin to discuss the next steps to amend the legislation governing amateur rocketry. We hope to hear more in the coming months as several of our ideas were accepted.
For any questions, contact the RRS secretary.
By Dave Nordling, Secretary, Reaction Research Society
It was a half century ago today that mankind landed on the Moon. This event has had an impact on both generations present to witness this landmark event and the generations born afterward, such as myself. The Apollo 11 moon landing was a daring extension of an aggressive program that was progressively built from the dawn of the space age with abundant resources, acceptance of risk and political will never seen before (and never since). The herculean task set by the late President Kennedy in 1961 of landing a man on the moon and safely returning him to Earth by the end of the decade (1970) was fulfilled on July 24, 1969.
It was only eight years before that time when manned spaceflight began with the humble beginnings of riding a derivative of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) into low earth orbit scraping the bounds of the upper atmosphere. The journey was fulfilled with the enormous 6,540,000 lbm tower of three stages of the Saturn V vehicle filled with kerosene, liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen that pushed three brave men into a new sphere of influence of the Earth’s closest celestial body just three days away. New systems and new rocket motors were built from scratch and flown in less than a decade. The massive Saturn V rocket could throw an unprecedented 107,100 lbm to trans-lunar injection (TLI) orbit. No other past or operational launch vehicle has surpassed this ability to this very day.
Looking back, landing a man on the lunar surface appears simple and almost certain. But to those watching from their black and white televisions across the country and to the men and women behind the launch consoles, all of the Apollo missions were truly audacious with the looming deadline, a Cold War rival busy at work to maintain their leadership in space and an ever-present risk for tragedy at every step. Lives were lost, sacrifices were made and the goal remained steadfast. Excellence was demanded from hundreds of thousands of technical professionals, suppliers, shop workers, clerks and everyday people and was delivered such that two astronauts could walk on a foreign world opening the door to our species visiting a place beyond our blue Earth.
At this 50th anniversary, it is interesting to reflect on what has happened since. After six more Apollo flights with five resulting in 10 more Americans walking, even driving over the lunar surface, the program came to an end under the Nixon Administration’s budget cuts. No other nation, including our own, has returned. It is probably due to this fact alone that more and more people begin to doubt whether the moon landing was ever real.
Also, it is the opinion of this author that because the Soviet Union’s then-secret moon program failed to place a cosmonaut into lunar orbit with their massive N-1 rocket, let alone a successful landing on the lunar surface, that our country saw fit to halt the progress of Apollo and turn our back on the Moon for five decades. I can only imagine how history would be different if the any of the four Soviet launches of the N-1 from February 1969 to November of 1972 had been a success.
The first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong, has passed away just a little less than seven years ago. Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins remain as living historical witnesses, but in time, they too will pass on. NASA has a huge discontinuity in their chronology of exploration after the Apollo and Skylab program’s success. A long period of quiet then the Shuttle followed by eight years of paying the Russians for rides to the International Space Station (ISS) from Russia is all that remains. Our unmanned program has continued with ever more impressive returns as we learned about the moon, Mars and places throughout in the solar system, but our manned space program remains at a stand-still.
The legacy of Apollo has been more of historical legend and pride than any tangible progress eclipsing this feat of human achievement. The Space Shuttle program and its nearly four decades of life brought us the historical achievement of the first American woman in space, the first African-American in space, the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, the first visit to a Russian space station, Mir, the first Russian cosmonaut to fly on an American space vessel, and of course the multi-year construction of the ISS celebrating its third decade of operation even after the Shuttle’s retirement. There are many people who feel that the Shuttle program failed its basic promise of routine access to space and certainly to fulfill the loftier goals of men reaching beyond low Earth orbit.
Since the days of Apollo, there have been new discoveries about the Moon. Thanks to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) launched in 2009, the Apollo launch sites have been seen in higher detail.
The Indian ISRO Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbiter, the Japanese Kaguya lunar orbiter and the American LRO have each found evidence of lunar lava tubes and “moon caves” in several places along the lunar surface which offers a tantalizing possibility of a ready-made shelter for future manned exploration.
The discovery of water ice in the permanent shadow in craters at the Moon’s poles starting from the Soviet Luna 24 probe to the ISRO Chandrayaan-1 orbiter provided strong evidence of an important resource awaiting future lunar explorers. .
Most recently, on January 3 of this year, the Chinese with the Chang’e 4 have soft-landed a rover (Yutu-2) on the far side of the Moon, a first for any nation.
With the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2011, planned since the Columbia disaster of 2003, the Constellation program, later renamed the Space Launch System (SLS) was built and extended from legacy technologies with years of flight experience.
At this moment in time, NASA has redoubled its commitment to returning people to the surface of the moon in just five years from now, 2024. It is possible this goal can be realized, but there are abundant reasons to be skeptical.
Technology is no longer the perceived barrier to finding our way back to the Moon. The ability of any government or administration to muster the cohesive, sustained political will and necessary funding to build and fly the SLS program to put men back on the moon is the question that remains unanswered. More so, will we have the fortitude to recover from failures should they occur and surmount them to make a permanent colony as was envisioned for after Apollo? To date, my generation has waited in vain on the many promises from NASA to deliver something of the magnitude of Apollo.
There is no shortage of passionate, intelligent people in this world. Many share the vision of mankind becoming an interplanetary species. Our art and culture have been permanently changed from seeing the whole of our world as a small blue marble against the enormous blackness of space. The true legacy of Apollo is the inspiration that was given to this nation’s people and any nation seeking to find pride in their abilities to put their citizens in space. Regardless of what may come in the next few years with NASA, the dream is alive with the people of the Earth to be explorers. To move beyond dreams is what will extend mankind to the Moon and beyond.
Dave Nordling, Secretary, Reaction Research Society
The pioneering theoretical and experimental work that formed the basis for the modern practical liquid rocket was published 100 years ago today.
A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes, by Robert Hutchings Goddard (1882-1945), was published by the Smithsonian Institution, on May 26, 1919. Considered the father of American rocketry, Goddard developed the theory of his work while at Princeton University in 1912-1913 with experiments undertaken during 1915-1916 at Clark University.
This 79-page paper described a series of practical experiments using nitrocellulose “smokeless” powder combusted within an enclosed chamber through a de Laval nozzle both in the ambient environment and under vacuum conditions. This paper also included mathematical derivations to develop a theory of rocket action taking in account air resistance and gravity with the goal of determining the minimum initial mass necessary for an ideal rocket to deliver a final mass of one pound to any desired altitude.
In his research, Goddard sought to devise a practical means to send instruments above the range of sounding balloons (about 20 miles) to explore the upper atmosphere. What makes this work fascinating is how much was known at the time of his paper’s publication versus how much was yet to be learned and become common knowledge in our time. Very little was known about the nature of the upper atmosphere in 1919. Yet, the basic concept of a rocket with a restrictive nozzle was known for centuries in the Chinese civilization and later in Europe with the 19th century British Congreve rockets.
In this scientific work, Goddard meticulously lays out his plan of research and the incremental progress he made to verify each of his claims. Most significant is his first conclusion on page 34 that his experiments in air and in vacuum prove that the propulsive force from a rocket is really based on a jet of gas having an extremely high exhaust velocity and is NOT merely an affect of reaction against the air.
Goddard’s work did not receive much funding during his lifetime. His work in rocketry even invited the ignorant criticism of the New York Times and others in the public which had a profound affect on Goddard in his lack of willingness to collaborate even until his death in 1945. In all fairness, it should be noted that the New York Times did see fit to offer an apology to Goddard 24 years after his death and only 50 years ago (in 1969) in the weeks before the Apollo 11 flight that landed the first two men on the moon by a multi-stage rocket operating quite well in the vacuum of space without a media for the vehicle to react against.
Air & Space Magazine, The Misunderstood Professor
by Frank H. Winter, May 2008
Goddard was awarded two patents in 1914, one for a multi-stage rocket and one for a liquid-fuel rocket. Considered an iconic work of 20th century science, all rocketry enthusiasts, students and professionals owe themselves the privilege of reading Dr. Goddard’s 1919 monograph which would lead to the first successful test of a liquid rocket flight in 1923 and the first successful liquid rocket flight on March 16, 1926 in Auburn, Massachusetts.
Goddard’s early discoveries included the determination that fins on a rocket by themselves were not sufficient to stabilize a rocket in flight. Goddard’s inventions included movable vanes to vector the rocket exhaust stream in flight and a gyroscope-based control system to effectively guide a rocket in flight.
Although relatively unappreciated in his home country, Goddard’s work was noticed by the Germans and in years later leading to their own rocket development program leading to the V-2 ballistic missile used to terrifying effect during the latter portion of the Second World War. During the Cold War, the V-2 was the heritage of the first rockets by the first space-faring nations.
- CSFM committee meeting on rocketry, 2020-02-21
- 50 Years After One Small Step for a Man
- 100 Years Ago: A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes
- 2019 RRS Symposium was a success!
- Speaker List for the 2019 RRS Symposium
- Composite Structures Presentation at EAA 96
- Build Your Own Rocket Event with Spaceport L.A.
- Liquid Rocket Components: Pyrotechnic Valves
- A Quick Word on Dip Tubes
- Spaceport L.A. holds its Rocktoberfest event at Relativity Space
- RRS visit to Additive Rocket Corporation
- A multi-staged vehicle with peak sensor
- Report on timer circuit design
- Posted 7 more Newsletters
- Volume 54 #3 September 1997 Newsletter
- Pictures by Tony Richards
- George Garboden’s 14k Booster and Space Dart
- Miscellaneous Pictures
- Hybrid Rocket Pictures
- Scott Clafflin’s 1670lb thrust LOX / Ethanol Rocket
- Rocket Go-Cart at the MTA
- Garvey and CSULB
- Escape II
- Rocket Launch, February 2001
- Rocket Launch, January 2001
- Rocket Launch, December 2000
- Some videos from the MTA
- Rocket Launch, September 2002