h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
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]
[link]
|
| |
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. |
|
| |