[HN Gopher] How to not build a two stage model rocket
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How to not build a two stage model rocket
        
       Author : KMJ-007
       Score  : 117 points
       Date   : 2025-04-13 04:00 UTC (19 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (knowone08.gitbook.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (knowone08.gitbook.io)
        
       | gostsamo wrote:
       | I hoped for some kind of postmortem to understand what went wrong
       | and what was learned from the failure.
        
         | lmm wrote:
         | The second and especially third pages have some of that.
        
           | gostsamo wrote:
           | oh, it looked like link to another post
        
         | user_7832 wrote:
         | Here's the direct link to the 3rd page if anyone wants :
         | 
         | https://knowone08.gitbook.io/vgecrocketry/subsystem-survival...
         | 
         | I'd recommend reading the earlier 2 pages for context though.
        
       | mykowebhn wrote:
       | I don't get why it was bad to name the rocket Vanessa.
        
         | tamad wrote:
         | I was wondering the same. I'm not in this industry, but perhaps
         | rockets are not typically given human names, so it's a joke?
         | Also, it's spelled Venessa rather than Vanessa, so maybe it's
         | humorous because of the misspelling.
        
         | thedufer wrote:
         | I think the author was pointing at the fact that "Venessa"
         | looks like a typo.
        
       | quibono wrote:
       | I didn't know about OpenRocket! Great that there are open source
       | solutions for this stuff
        
         | hermitcrab wrote:
         | OpenRocket is great. But it obviously isn't doing a full CFD
         | simulation, so take the apogee (max altitude) estimates with a
         | pinch of salt. It estimated our apogee about 15% higher than we
         | actually got.
        
       | michaelcampbell wrote:
       | When I was a kid I was into Estes model rockets and it always
       | amazed me the preferred/documented way of glomming the multiple
       | stages of engines together was a single strip of scotch tape.
        
         | baking wrote:
         | My memory is that two-stage rockets had a few more points of
         | failure but were harder to retrieve, so not really worth the
         | effort. The Estes engines solved most of the technical
         | challenges, but I lived in an area with lots of trees and no
         | huge expanses of open space.
        
       | sumanthvepa wrote:
       | From the blog post: "Pro tip: just take your time and design the
       | O-ring system properly. Trust us -- you don't want to gamble with
       | hot gases and bad seals."
       | 
       | I think NASA may have learnt that lesson in '86.
        
       | hermitcrab wrote:
       | > Turns out, PVC was never the move. It's lightweight, yes, but
       | also has the structural integrity of a soggy biscuit under
       | pressure.
       | 
       | I believe that PVC is not considered safe for model rockets, as
       | it turns into shrapnel if it ruptures. Happy to be corrected, if
       | that isn't right.
        
         | Taniwha wrote:
         | so does the steel they replaced it with ductile metals like
         | aluminium are required by HPR rocket safety codes
        
           | hermitcrab wrote:
           | Yes, you want something that tears (like aluminium) rather
           | than fragments.
        
       | hermitcrab wrote:
       | Note that making your own fuel is:
       | 
       | a) Very dangerous, if you don't know what you are doing.
       | 
       | b) Illegal without a licence in some countries (such as the UK).
        
         | diggan wrote:
         | What's the fun of buying ready made parts and just assembling
         | it? At least the authors probably learned something new in the
         | process.
         | 
         | Besides, the fuel "hacking" they seem to be doing seems
         | relatively simple, isn't it what is commonly called "Rocket
         | Candy" or something like that? In that case, it's a fairly
         | common propellant made by amateur's. We're on _Hacker_ News
         | after all, as long as they 're not hurting other people, if
         | it's illegal or not should matter less.
        
           | gosub100 wrote:
           | What's the fun of doing a bunch of work but not getting a
           | successful launch (best case) or blowing your hand off or
           | burning the house down (worst case)?
        
           | mystified5016 wrote:
           | For the same reason that it's generally illegal to make your
           | own fireworks: you have a pretty good chance of killing
           | yourself or more importantly kill someone nearby.
           | 
           | The risk of letting random people blow themselves up is one
           | thing, but having innocent bystanders get killed or maimed is
           | totally different.
           | 
           | Most fully developed adults agree that putting yourself at
           | risk in the pursuit of your hobbies is fine, with limits.
           | Putting _others_ in danger who are unaware of the risk to
           | life and limb is _not_ acceptable. You, a private citizen,
           | simply do not have the right to produce bombs as a hobby
           | because of the undue risk to everyone around you.
        
             | diggan wrote:
             | So, basically a longer and reworded version of "as long as
             | they're not hurting other people"?
        
               | noqc wrote:
               | As long as they _can prove that they are not risking_
               | hurting other people. Suppose that I fire a gun in a
               | randomly chosen direction and don 't hurt anyone, should
               | I be allowed to repeat the process?
        
       | hermitcrab wrote:
       | It is great that people are going out doing stuff, having fun and
       | learning. But this project seems like a disaster in the making.
       | 
       | -Making your own fuel.
       | 
       | -Using inappropriate materials (e.g. PVC)
       | 
       | -Poor storage of motors.
       | 
       | -People are standing quite close to the rocket when it launches.
       | 
       | -There seem to be buildings quite close to the launch in one of
       | the videos.
       | 
       | -Night launches. How are you going to get out of the way, if you
       | can't see the rocket?
       | 
       | 2 stage rockets are particularly dangerous, because as the second
       | stage can launch horizontally or downward if the first stage
       | tilts (as shown in one of the videos).
       | 
       | I think they are being irresponsible with the safety of
       | themselves and anyone nearby. I would strongly recommend they
       | learn a bit of safe practices and make a single stage rocket that
       | works reliably, before even attempting 2 stage.
        
         | sumanthvepa wrote:
         | As opposed to the way SpaceX does it?
         | 
         | Let huge rockets blow up over active airspace?
         | 
         | This looks like a bunch of college kids building small little
         | rockets. I'm probably taking a much bigger risk walking on the
         | street, where I live in India.
         | 
         | It's a little risky. But do the stuff far enough away from
         | people and they'll be fine.
        
           | pfdietz wrote:
           | SpaceX's rockets launch with downrange areas carefully
           | considered; launches have been aborted because of boats
           | wandering into these areas.
        
             | cratermoon wrote:
             | Twice now Starship has exploded over the Gulf of Mexico and
             | caused massive and dangerous disruptions to commercial
             | passenger air travel. Flights were delayed and some
             | diverted because of fuel limitations.
        
               | hermitcrab wrote:
               | I get the impression that SpaceX's attitude is that it is
               | cheaper to learn by blowing stuff up, than it is to
               | meticulously plan everything (as NASA is famous for).
               | However, SpaceX don't have to pay for the externalities
               | (such as disrupted air travel). I don't see SpaceX
               | attitude changing now that Musk seems to be running[1] a
               | sizeable chunk of the US government.
               | 
               | [1] into the ground.
        
               | JumpCrisscross wrote:
               | > _Starship has exploded over the Gulf of Mexico and
               | caused massive and dangerous disruptions to commercial
               | passenger air travel_
               | 
               | Disruptive, yes. Dangerous, no. (They're disruptive
               | because the planes avoid the debris field. Launches are
               | also scheduled such that no plane should be pinned down
               | by debris.)
               | 
               | I'd also note that, apart from two deaths in 2014,
               | SpaceX's track record with human lives is pristine.
        
           | hermitcrab wrote:
           | >It's a little risky.
           | 
           | Everything in life involves risks. And there are cultural
           | differences in attitude to risk. But some of these risks are
           | quite unnecessary.
           | 
           | Also, I would consider making your own fuel (without
           | sufficient expertise), as more than 'a little risky'.
           | Especially if they move on to bigger rockets.
        
             | foobarian wrote:
             | > making your own fuel (without sufficient expertise), as
             | more than 'a little risky'
             | 
             | It seems like just the classic smoke bomb recipe with KNO3
             | and sugar. I would be comfortable preparing this even
             | indoors, let alone outside.
        
               | SoftTalker wrote:
               | My friends and I made far riskier stuff as teens based on
               | our high school chemistry knowledge. It was fun but in
               | retrospect not particularly safe.
        
         | 0_____0 wrote:
         | I get the sense that the team represented here are going it
         | alone e.g. there aren't amateur rocketry organizations around
         | that they can work with and gain knowledge and working
         | practices from.
         | 
         | Maybe someone on here who is in amateur rocketry can reach out
         | and forge some connections between their group and more
         | established ones? That's the true beauty of the Internet,
         | right?
        
           | cge wrote:
           | Yes, for context: this appears to be a group at Vishwakarma
           | Government Engineering College in Ahmedabad, India. A quick
           | search suggest that there might not really be any regulation
           | or much of a community for model rocketry in India in
           | general.
        
       | ryzvonusef wrote:
       | reminds me of the BPS Space youtube channel, he makes rockets
       | too:
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/@BPSspace
       | 
       | https://bps.space/pages/about
        
         | gosub100 wrote:
         | That guy is amazing in not just his accomplishments but his
         | determination and resolve over the year (And I'm surprised the
         | authorities haven't shut him down over ITAR type regulations).
        
         | mavamaarten wrote:
         | Except that he launches them from a proper launching site
         | whilst hiding in a bunker/shelter, rather than standing around
         | the thing in flip flops.
        
       | karmicthreat wrote:
       | https://www.youtube.com/bpsspace Does some pretty informative
       | work with amateur rockets.
        
       | magicalhippo wrote:
       | If you want to build a two-stage _water_ rocket, Air Command
       | Rockets has detailed build series over on YouTube[1], from simple
       | soda bottle setups to a custom rocket that they got[2] to over
       | 1600m (5000 ft).
       | 
       | That's air and water propelling a rocket a mile up!
       | 
       | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/@AirCommandRockets
       | 
       | [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCaiK3Zqs4M
        
       | clbrmbr wrote:
       | I had a lot of fun building rockets in a similar way as a kid. We
       | also tried PVC but discovered that it fails in a dangerous way,
       | after which we used only copper. I had fun programming a PIC16 in
       | assembler to read from the accelerometer and fire the home made
       | igniters of black powder, nitrocellulose laquer, and nichrome
       | wire.
        
       | polishdude20 wrote:
       | A few years back I built a dual stage model rocket using regular
       | rocket motors:
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/zPtFv-cwcfQ?si=mjy6hg9YPARpTkRV
        
       | sandworm101 wrote:
       | I would be warry about doing this, no matter what country you are
       | in. Using commercial motors is one thing, baking your own very
       | much another. There is a very fine line between cooking up some
       | rocket propellant and operating a bomb factory. Imagine getting
       | discovered with a few pounds of homemade explosives and box of
       | electronics. I wouldn't want to have that conversation with the
       | police.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-04-13 23:01 UTC)