GERLACH, Nevada USA — Engineering senior Kip Daugirdas went to the Black Rock Desert outside of Reno, Nev. at the end of September in hopes of setting a world record. He wanted to watch the Maverick III, a rocket that he helped design and build, soar 70,000 feet.

Instead, he watched the rocket ascend a few thousand feet and spin end-over-end before falling back to earth - twice.

Daugirdas was one of a handful of engineers from the University's Michigan Aeronautical Science Association who attempted to set a new record by launching the rocket 70,000 feet in the air - higher than airplanes fly - and more than twice the current record for a rocket of its class.

Members of the Michigan Aeronautical Science Association set up the Maverick III rocket in the Black Rock Desert outside Reno, Nevada. Photo: Matthew McKeown.

To reach that height, the rocket would have had to travel at about 3.5 times the speed of sound. That's about half a mile a second.

At the end of last month, the team spent about a week in the desert setting up the launch pad, preparing the rocket and waiting for good weather conditions before the launch.

The team launched the rocket twice.

On the first attempt, the motor ignited but fizzled on the launch pad for a few seconds before lifting off. The rocket briefly flew straight up into the air but then began to arch and fly sideways, said Daugirdas, the project's coordinator and lead designer.

The team members tried to correct the problems with a replacement motor and had a more successful flight the next day, but they did not come anywhere close to the record, said Matthew McKeown, a College of Engineering graduate student who worked on the project.

Daugirdas said he was disappointed that the attempt failed but was prepared for the outcome.

"We needed a lot of luck for this to work," he said.

Daugirdas designed and built most of Maverick III over the summer during an internship at Packer Engineering, a consulting firm. The firm sponsored the project in conjunction with the College of Engineering.

Prior to the Nevada attempt, Maverick III had never been launched, although one section of the rocket had flown independently. The team relied on calculations and simulators to estimate the rocket's flight.

"You can write all the numbers you want, but until you actually put something together and fly it, there is no telling what is going to happen," Daugirdas said before the team left for the launch site.

The team built Maverick III in three separate sections, with each one made of a composite of carbon fiber and fiberglass. The sections are designed to drop away as the rocket climbs until only the top section reaches the top height.

McKeown estimated that the rocket's motor produced about 800 pounds of thrust. Because the rocket was so powerful, McKeown had to undergo a background check by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives before purchasing the fuel. The group also had to obtain written approval from the Federal Aviation Administration and they also had to get clearance from the FAA just before launch.

Most of the rocket was not badly damaged during the flights, so the team might try to launch it in again the future, Daugirdas said.

"I was just thrilled to be out in Nevada and have the rocket on a launch pad," Daugirdas said. "I had put a lot of my time and money into trying to get this rocket built and ready to fly. There hasn't been a day in the last five months when I haven't thought or worked on this project."

The team also mounted a 7.2 megapixel camera in the top section of the rocket with the help of Ben Hutcheson, a student at Iowa State University. The camera was programmed to take about 800 pictures, about one photo every couple of hundredths of a second. But most of the photos came out blurry because the camera didn't focus properly. If the rocket had broken the altitude record, the camera could have captured an image close to what the Earth would look like from space.

Copyright © 2007, The Michigan Daily.

10-09-2007 10:02 AM  #1
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Can someone fill in what record is being referenced here? And what has Arizona got to do with it?

10-09-2007 10:15 AM  #2
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	Arizona? I don't know about the particular record, but I imagine it was a Guiness record for rockets of their impulse class or perhaps records for students.

10-09-2007 10:40 AM  #3
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	They fixed it already--original headline read ...dashed over AZ desert. Going to the MASA site for a better look, 3 staged vehicle with an awfully high L/D ratio. IIRC another student project this year (also with very high L/D) cartwheeled after a good boost. A trend? thinking maybe ignoring the lift of the rocket AF, and/or too low a damping coefficient. Static stability is one thing....

10-09-2007 09:31 PM  #4
StuBarrett Certified Level Eleven   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 116	Quote: They fixed it already--original headline read ...dashed over AZ desert. Going to the MASA site for a better look, 3 staged vehicle with an awfully high L/D ratio. IIRC another student project this year (also with very high L/D) cartwheeled after a good boost. A trend? thinking maybe ignoring the lift of the rocket AF, and/or too low a damping coefficient. Static stability is one thing.... Yeah, same result as the Florida guys at LDRS 11. Seems that this is a very common problem that results from flying too many 'simulations' and not enough rockets. Stu

10-09-2007 11:27 PM  #5
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Stu, Funny re Rocksim jockies. And thats why the Playa still serves as the ultimate school of hard knocks....

10-10-2007 08:51 PM  #6
JToddK Level 3 Buckeye   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 5	They were attempting to set/break the Tripoli complex N record. The motors, I believe, N2000 to M1315 to K185. Todd Knight I know it is tacky to reply to your own post but... Due the math. Those three motors got to within 3 N/s of the maximum. Pretty impressive. I believe that the original project was to be a two stage, N2000 to M1315. I am the advisor to the Ohio State University group and we already had plans to make an attempt at taking the record away if they succeeded. Why should the football teams have all the fun. It would have been very difficult as the University of Michigan has a very, very rich history in rocketry. Todd Knight Quote: Stu, Funny re Rocksim jockies. And thats why the Playa still serves as the ultimate school of hard knocks.... The simulators, I assume, were way more complex than Rocsim. My group uses very complex CFD programs even on the smaller rockets (just for the practice). These programs are orders of magnitude more complete than Rocsim. but... as you state, sometimes you have to look at the answer the computer gives you, and just say that doesn't look like it will work based on what I've seen. Todd Knight

10-10-2007 09:49 PM  #7
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	An automerged TRIPLEpost. Awesome. Uncle Vanya will be happy to know that I have disabled this "feature" after seeing this, although I believe the reader is still able to follow the flow of the posts, it still is an uncomfortable thing to manage. So I turned it off. If the users say turn it back on, I'll do that. Enjoy!

10-10-2007 09:49 PM  #8
Chuck_Rudy Banned   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 223	When the theoretical and the practical come together that becomes a fabulous education. Many of us should be quite jealous of the opportunities your students have in front of them. Chuck

10-10-2007 10:45 PM  #9
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Quote: They were attempting to set/break the Tripoli complex N record. The motors, I believe, N2000 to M1315 to K185. Todd Knight I know it is tacky to reply to your own post but... Due the math. Those three motors got to within 3 N/s of the maximum. Pretty impressive. I believe that the original project was to be a two stage, N2000 to M1315. I am the advisor to the Ohio State University group and we already had plans to make an attempt at taking the record away if they succeeded. Why should the football teams have all the fun. It would have been very difficult as the University of Michigan has a very, very rich history in rocketry. Todd Knight The simulators, I assume, were way more complex than Rocsim. My group uses very complex CFD programs even on the smaller rockets (just for the practice). These programs are orders of magnitude more complete than Rocsim. but... as you state, sometimes you have to look at the answer the computer gives you, and just say that doesn't look like it will work based on what I've seen. Todd Knight Thanks I wondered if it was the TRA complex N record. But unimpressed that a group of aerospace students can add to 20,000. And we all assumed or at least I did that the software was more powerful than Rocksim--this was shorthand. I wish I could recall the other rocket that cartwheeled--this may not have been a student group at all, but a fledgling aerospace company. IIRC, tho, it was a beanpole with the tiniest of fins like some mutant R superroc. Univ of Colorado, btw, also has a rich rocket tradition. Be more fun than football to see these college powerhouses duke it out on the Playa. The college bowl of Rocketry--invite Emory Riddle, Stanford, MIT, and whatever others who may wish to contend for the throne.

10-11-2007 07:42 AM  #10
DumasBro2 I Felta Thi Frat Boy   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 235	hmmm...I wonder if they only used 1AA battery?

10-11-2007 03:45 PM  #11
JToddK Level 3 Buckeye   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 5	Quote: Thanks I wondered if it was the TRA complex N record. But unimpressed that a group of aerospace students can add to 20,000. And we all assumed or at least I did that the software was more powerful than Rocksim--this was shorthand. I wish I could recall the other rocket that cartwheeled--this may not have been a student group at all, but a fledgling aerospace company. IIRC, tho, it was a beanpole with the tiniest of fins like some mutant R superroc. Univ of Colorado, btw, also has a rich rocket tradition. Be more fun than football to see these college powerhouses duke it out on the Playa. The college bowl of Rocketry--invite Emory Riddle, Stanford, MIT, and whatever others who may wish to contend for the throne. When we worked up our ideas the bulk of the students and myself figured the AT N2000 to M1315 was the magic combination. The best sims put them and us at about 55K. The simple act of adding the 3rd stage with a K185 pushed that potential record out over 70K. The software comment was ment to be a little toung in cheek. I will learn that sarcasm doesn't work in email someday. We have spoken to the group at Purdue and will talk to the Michigan group. The Big Ten universities suffer from lack of proper testing sites. We just dont have fields with large waivers to test ideas before heading to Blackrock. Also, the Aero departments are struggling to maintain their independece. In 1986, I was one of 200+ students applying for the 45 positions in the departmant. Today the department is struggling to fill each class and has had to lower requirements. Todd Knight BTW Sorry Darell for causing the triple stack post. I was trying to keep my posts from looking like a book

10-11-2007 06:44 PM  #12
JToddK Level 3 Buckeye   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 5	I am sorry for the Rocsim jab. Sarcasm doesn't translate well in email. I would like to see new traditions at our universities develop. University Aerospace programs are taking an incredible beating right now, even the big ones like Michigan and Maryland. In 1986 there were 200+ of us going after the 45 slots available at Ohio State. This year, at Ohio State, they are having trouble just filling those slots. They have had lower the entry requirements and convert to a true 4 year program. There is a real chance that the department will be rolled into the Mechanical department and lose its independence. We are going to reach out to the other Big Ten programs such as Purdue and Michigan and try to organize either group projects or competitions to help bring more students into the departments. Also it could be fun to beat Michigan at something besides football, basketball, baseball........... Hats off to the Michigan students for trying. If they can get their project to work correctly it will be a record that will be hard to beat. I have run the sims Todd Knight

10-11-2007 07:45 PM  #13
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	Quote: BTW Sorry Darell for causing the triple stack post. I was trying to keep my posts from looking like a book Hey, no problem. I was being more critical of the Automerged Doublepost modification I added to the forums, which I decided to disable for now. So, it was me I was talking to, I suppose. Yes, I'm nutty.

10-11-2007 10:26 PM  #14
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Quote: I am sorry for the Rocsim jab. Sarcasm doesn't translate well in email. I would like to see new traditions at our universities develop. University Aerospace programs are taking an incredible beating right now, even the big ones like Michigan and Maryland. In 1986 there were 200+ of us going after the 45 slots available at Ohio State. This year, at Ohio State, they are having trouble just filling those slots. They have had lower the entry requirements and convert to a true 4 year program. There is a real chance that the department will be rolled into the Mechanical department and lose its independence. We are going to reach out to the other Big Ten programs such as Purdue and Michigan and try to organize either group projects or competitions to help bring more students into the departments. Also it could be fun to beat Michigan at something besides football, basketball, baseball........... Hats off to the Michigan students for trying. If they can get their project to work correctly it will be a record that will be hard to beat. I have run the sims Todd Knight Todd, thats good news for me--maybe I can apply and get accepted. Seriously, I did start the application process at Univ of Colorado aerospace engr last year for a masters/PhD track, even took the GRE's and had my transcripts mailed, then got cold feet as in would anyone take a 50 year old psychiatrist seriously....

10-11-2007 10:57 PM  #15
tedcochran55409 NAR Trustee   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 46	Quote: ...Going to the MASA site for a better look, 3 staged vehicle with an awfully high L/D ratio. IIRC another student project this year (also with very high L/D) cartwheeled after a good boost. A trend? thinking maybe ignoring the lift of the rocket AF, and/or too low a damping coefficient. Static stability is one thing.... Or a bendy airframe/coupler issue, just like all superrocs (and this one wanted to be supersonic). --tc

10-11-2007 11:02 PM  #16
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Ted, Were you there, did anyone here actually see it? I mean thats a great guess. BTW And apologies in advance for the NAR remark re the 1958 magazine on the other thread, I couldn't control myself.

10-11-2007 11:16 PM  #17
plano_doug NAR L2   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 55	Quote: Todd, thats good news for me--maybe I can apply and get accepted. Seriously, I did start the application process at Univ of Colorado aerospace engr last year for a masters/PhD track, even took the GRE's and had my transcripts mailed, then got cold feet as in would anyone take a 50 year old psychiatrist seriously.... Do it. then post here. If you do, it might just push me over the hump (reheat my feet) to go back for my PhDEE...if I can find someplace to accept me Of course, doing that with four kids is pretty much beyond my fiscal limits But I can dream, right? Doug

10-11-2007 11:33 PM  #18
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	maybe I will. Worst they can do is roll on the floor laughing their collective asses off. My real fear is they would say yes....in which case I could always say no, but maybe I wouldn't, and end up regretting it.

10-11-2007 11:34 PM  #19
tedcochran55409 NAR Trustee   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 46	Quote: Ted, Were you there, did anyone here actually see it? I mean thats a great guess. BTW And apologies in advance for the NAR remark re the 1958 magazine on the other thread, I couldn't control myself. No, I wasn't there, but there is a picture in his powerpoint of a similar model with what appears to be a bendy issue , and I've photographed HPR multistage rockets that looped for the same reason. (Attached photo is MN Tripoli's Big Honking Rocket on its maiden flight (M to K to J, I think) just before it looped. The flight was aborted by RC and it all came back safely. The angle wasn't right on, but as the superimposed lines show, it definitely wasn't plumb, and it got worse after that). It's hard to be long and stiff, especially with intermediate sets of fins scattered about. Still, I seriously applaud the effort, and the presentation and photos show seriously excellent workmanship. As for the dig--Meh. It's no biggie. I'm working on my callouses.

10-11-2007 11:36 PM  #20
plano_doug NAR L2   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 55	Quote: University Aerospace programs are taking an incredible beating right now, even the big ones like Michigan and Maryland. In 1986 there were 200+ of us going after the 45 slots available at Ohio State. This year, at Ohio State, they are having trouble just filling those slots. They have had lower the entry requirements and convert to a true 4 year program. There is a real chance that the department will be rolled into the Mechanical department and lose its independence. I'm under the impression that all the technical disciplines are shrinking. But I'm sure the aero segment is among the worst hit. Although so is the professional side, too. Industry isn't exactly beating the university doors down looking for airframe guys these days. With the post-Reagan downturn in defense and all the consolidation in the industry, there just aren't many players left out there, and thus it's a buyer's market. I know some really, really sharp airframe guys at McBoeing in St Louis, and it's a totally different job market for them now than it was 25 years ago. Anyway, if the aerospace companies aren't offering lucrative jobs, I can understand there being fewer students looking for aerospace degrees. Hitting closer to home, my fear is that as more and more manufacturing moves off shore (to China) engineering will follow. So the rest of us engineers could be in the same boat as the aero guys in a few years. Doug

10-12-2007 12:17 AM  #21
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Lets hope the privatization of space will lead to a barnstorming era with lots of smaller and smarter companies replacing the big companies like the mammals did the dinosaurs, and there will be homegrown demand for all these young grads with their big, bold ideas.

10-12-2007 12:27 AM  #22
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Quote: No, I wasn't there, but there is a picture in his powerpoint of a similar model with what appears to be a bendy issue , and I've photographed HPR multistage rockets that looped for the same reason. (Attached photo is MN Tripoli's Big Honking Rocket on its maiden flight (M to K to J, I think) just before it looped. The flight was aborted by RC and it all came back safely. The angle wasn't right on, but as the superimposed lines show, it definitely wasn't plumb, and it got worse after that). It's hard to be long and stiff, especially with intermediate sets of fins scattered about. Still, I seriously applaud the effort, and the presentation and photos show seriously excellent workmanship. As for the dig--Meh. It's no biggie. I'm working on my callouses. Great picture--does look to be some aeroelastic deformation at work, aka the bends at work there. I'm not sure if I understand how that leads to a loop. In fact i know I don't. It must be obvious, but I aint getting it Is it just a product of momentum whipping the rocket around its CG? Seems unlikely. Someone help me out. Is this the part Barrowman left out, ie the part deflected is now at a pretty good aoa, and generates enough lift to pull the rocket around end wise?

10-12-2007 11:42 AM  #23
JToddK Level 3 Buckeye   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 5	I also hope for a bright future in the cottage industry. The kids that are working towards their Aero degrees here at OSU seem to be in that mold. They are studying Aero because they want to, not because they think there is a super high paying corporate job waiting for them when they graduate. They all seem to want to work for someone like Rutan. It is not all doom and gloom. Computational Fluid Dynamics specialists are doing well, but it is a little boring (OK, alot boring). It is not quite like Kelly Johnson sketching out the SR-71 on a scrap piece of paper, Ben Rich coming up with the idea for Stealth from a Soviet scientist's paper or the idea of using the liquid fuel as a structural component of the Atlas rocket. Now its Rutan making a balsa and paper model of Spaceship 1 and chucking it off a catwalk to make sure his design is stable. But... for someone who really wants to do it, they can always find a way of making a living at it. Todd Knight BTW I have lots of these examples, some famous, some not so famous and even a couple of infamous ones. Just feeling like a sappy old Aero guy. Todd Knight

10-12-2007 09:29 PM  #24
tedcochran55409 NAR Trustee   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 46	Quote: ... the part deflected is now at a pretty good aoa, and generates enough lift to pull the rocket around end wise? Yes, and in this case there are fins up high to help. It turns in to something akin to a sidewinder, except that the forwared "canards" are upper stage fins, and they stay turned in one direction. Hence the loop. Superrocs do the same thing with just the curvy body tubes supplying the additional lift. And, as you said up top, even if the airframe does stay stiff, a little windshear, and the body generates a lot of lift.... ---tc

10-13-2007 12:58 AM  #25
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Ted, Appreciate the response. And as an altitude junkie, and multistage fan, I ask you in the case of the min dia rocket, what one can do? I'm assuming any flex mostly occurs at the stage junctions. My limited expeimentation so far has been to seat the sustainer motors about 1/2 way down their length and let em rip foreward. Two problems: 1) you do serious waste to the booster, and second you need to cut a bunch of spacers to accomodate diff casings, and you may still get a case of the wigglies as the motor needs to be loose enuf to move. Seems like there should be a better way.