[SS-VehDev] Re: casing

Mon Oct 3 10:50:13 PDT 2005

Hi Bill,

I was getting ready to acquire the mandrel, I wanted to get your
feedback/requirements soon so I could move forward on it. If the SS2S
project does not have a hard size requirement I can make the other
project to spec. If that won't work for us I can work on changing the
other spec to match SS2S. I just need to know which way to jump.

The current M-100B design calls for a 250mm O.D.

I understand and can follow your approach below, but I don't want
to change the other project to adhere to SS2S requirements unless
it has been determined that this is the way SS2S will be going. It
does not make sense to purchase one mandrel for testing, then
another for the final project.

I see Richard has posted a follow up, more comments once I have
read that.

Matt C

On 10/1/05, william colburn <space1space at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> So the mandrel is 250 mm? Or is the finished part 250
> mm OD?
>
> Here is a plan:
>
> Use your existing mandrel to make a short stack casing
> to best procedure using carbon fiber, kevlar, glass
> where appropriate.
>
> We will develop end closures and hydrotest the sample.
>
> From there we will make a decision to go forward or
> move to another casing source.
>
> We can talk about the exact procedure when you are
> ready to go. It would likely involve an initial room
> temperature cure with shrink wrap, removal of the
> shrink wrap followed by a two stage cure at increasing
> temperatures.
>
> No gel coat, it adds weight and no increase in
> strength. No sanding, weakens the outer layre which
> them becomes dead weight also.
>
> BC
>
> --- Lakestake Rocketry <lakestake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > The M-100B has a 250mm airframe. It doesn't really
> > *need* to
> > be 100% scale, but it would be nice. I can fudge
> > either project to
> > match the other as needed. I would need to know soon
> > though...
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On 9/30/05, william colburn
> > <space1space at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Plug=mandrel over which you are applying the
> > composite
> > > material. The ultimate ID of the part.
> > >
> > > BC
> > >
> > > --- Lakestake Rocketry <lakestake at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good evening Bill,
> > > >
> > > > To which plug do you refer below?
> > > >
> > > > The makeup of the composite should be discussed.
> > I
> > > > agree that
> > > > should be several layers running both at 45' and
> > > > 90'. We should
> > > > probably use Aramid layers for toughness as well
> > as
> > > > the CF
> > > > for strength. CF alone may be too brittle for
> > this
> > > > application.
> > > >
> > > > Once we have a design I, or someone else, can
> > easily
> > > > lay up
> > > > a 1' square section that can be run through the
> > > > ringer as needed
> > > > to verify the design empirically.
> > > >
> > > > Those with Composites experience toss out ideas!
> > > >
> > > > Matt C
> > > >
> > > > On 9/29/05, william colburn
> > > > <space1space at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Excellent guys. Remember to do the fiber
> > > > orientation
> > > > > to get 2 x hoop as longitudinal count. When
> > Scaled
> > > > > Composite did their motor for SpaceShip One,
> > they
> > > > also
> > > > > did 45 degree wraps too. We ultimately need
> > two 10
> > > > > foot pieces and a 42 inch piece for the short
> > > > stack
> > > > > motor. We will hydrotest them all also to
> > 10-15%
> > > > over
> > > > > MEOP. What is the OD of your plug?
> > > > >
> > > > > BC
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Lakestake Rocketry <lakestake at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Roman,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you want to take up this challenge with
> > me? I
> > > > > > think we can
> > > > > > make better tube for less.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt C
> > > > > >
> > > > > > P.S. I am making a bunch of 10" CF tube now
> > for
> > > > a
> > > > > > scale M100
> > > > > > (russian sounding rocket of course!) As I am
> > > > tooling
> > > > > > up I can run
> > > > > > out a few dozen feet of SS2S tube while I am
> > at
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am looking for your confirmation that this
> > is
> > > > > > practical as I have
> > > > > > not finalized my plans for the M100. I would
> > > > also
> > > > > > enjoy you
> > > > > > as a collaborator on the team building the
> > > > airframe.
> > > > > > Let me
> > > > > > know what you think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you visiting LA any time soon?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/29/05, Lakestake Rocketry
> > > > <lakestake at gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Roman,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you want to go in on this with me? I
> > think
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > make better tube for less.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > > > From: william colburn
> > > > <space1space at sbcglobal.net>
> > > > > > > Date: Sep 29, 2005 1:08 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: casing
> > > > > > > To: "Robert H. Krech" <krech at psicorp.com>,
> > > > william
> > > > > > colburn <
> > > > > > > space1space at sbcglobal.net>,
> > > > richnakka at rogers.com,
> > > > > > Lakestake Rocketry <
> > > > > > > lakestake at gmail.com>, roman.lev at aero.cz,
> > > > "David
> > > > > > (Beltsville) Smith" <
> > > > > > > david.smith2 at perkinelmer.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At this point, I need some additional help
> > in
> > > > > > locating
> > > > > > > our casing material. I should be getting a
> > > > very
> > > > > > > belated quote on the composite tubing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The composite tubing is made in standard
> > inch
> > > > > > ID's. So
> > > > > > > the closest to our size is 10 inch ID.
> > This
> > > > makes
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > casing 10.375 OD. It is certainly
> > workable,
> > > > but
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > compatible with the nozzle which has
> > already
> > > > gone
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > scheduling. That was designed for a .06
> > wall
> > > > with
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > 10.00 inch OD casing, or titanium.
> > > > > > > The target cost for the composite is $65 a
> > > > foot.
> > > > > > > Probably doable with the current
> > membership.
> > > > > > > Advantages are it will be solid white in
> > > > color,
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > easily machined, drilled, good rigidity
> > due to
> > > > > > > additional wall thickness. Drawbacks are:
> > > > diameter
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > off our spec, attachments require about .5
> > > > > > Diameters,
> > > > > > > somewhat more thermally sensitive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The tubing they are quoting is NOT carbon
> > > > > > composite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now we could also do a carbon composite
> > layup.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > HAH-203 (see Hybriddyne.com <http://Hybriddyne.com>
> > <http://Hybriddyne.com>
> > > > <http://Hybriddyne.com>
> > > > > > <http://Hybriddyne.com>) is partially carbon
> > > > > > > composite, hand layup. With the
> > shrink-wrap
> > > > > > technique,
> > > > > > > very good results are gotten with no
> > autoclave
> > > > or
> > > > > > > bagging. Possible within our group.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can certainly adapt to the composite if
> > > > > > necessary.
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.exrocketry.net/pipermail/ss-vehdev/attachments/20051003/ac093cee/attachment.htm