h a l f b a k e r yThese statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
They make multi-stage rockets because the extra sections drop off as it flies to reduce dead weight.
The casing of the unraveling rocket would be spiral wound and would behave somewhat like a TOW missile as it unspools...Just unravelling the extra weight as it flies, rather than dropping off sections.
Piston_20Rocket
[spidermother, Oct 31 2012]
Case bonding, and why it's usually not done
http://www.nakka-ro...y.net/casebond.html
[spidermother, Nov 01 2012]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Hang on a moment. Rockets normally burn from the
bottom upwards. The bottom end is important,
because it carries the nozzle. So... |
|
| |
It's propelled by wool dust. |
|
| |
[MB] this would of course work on your syringe-rocket, except for the bit where it doesn't work. |
|
| |
(lyrics) "If you want to destroy my sweater, pull this thread as I walk away..." |
|
| |
In order for the combustion chamber to be strong enough, the drag due to unwinding would be huge. |
|
| |
The rocket would be built of solid fuel, with the nozzle climbing up the spiral body of the rocket, consuming it and turning it into pure thrust as it went. |
|
| |
Most solid fuel rockets don't burn bottom-to-top like that (it's called the end burner configuration, and it's considered difficult and dangerous). But it can be done. |
|
| |
Well, if they don't burn from the bottom up, they
burn from a central hole out. Either way, a rocket
needs to keep its arse. |
|
| |
Actually, I quite like [bungston]'s idea. If you had
a solid stick of propellant, with a cap on the top
and a cap on the bottom with a nozzle, and with
some very very very powerful springs holding the
two together... no, it still wouldn't work but it's a
nice idea. |
|
| |
If it were a liquid rocket, you could make the
tanks telescopic so they'd shorten as the fuel was
consumed. But then you wouldn't be saving any
weight. |
|
| |
//if they don't burn from the bottom up, they burn from a central hole out// Very often, the grain burns from all sides, including the outer surfaces (but often including a central hole). Mainly because if you design it to work any other way, a failure of the bond with the casing (or other means of preventing burning of the outside surface) greatly increases the burn rate, which is a Bad Thing. |
|
| |
This I didn't know. Is the combustion of solid fuels
at a similar temperature to that of liquid
(lox/kerosene) mixes? Liquid rocket combustion
chambers are usually actively cooled, but in a solid
rocket the whole damned thing is a combustion
chamber. |
|
| |
//This I didn't know.// (Link) to the superb site where I learned this, and nearly everything else I know about small rockets. |
|
| |
Liquid rockets burn hotter, in general, which is consistent with their higher specific impulse. |
|
| |