Tag Archive: Progeny Mk5 Block I Flight 1

Oct 21 2017

Progeny Mk5 Block I Flight 1 Analysis

After a full day cycle delay thanks to weather, the first Block I finally had a chance to liftoff after 4th sunrise, however it was beset by a failure of its first stage booster. The lack of ignition triggered a cascade of improper commands from the Automated Flight Control System which resulted in the premature deployment of the parachute, the second stage booster igniting and the rocket being carried almost 8km downrange to crash into the waters of the Kerblantic.

Today we investigated the first stage booster, which was left lying on the launchpad, in the VAB to determine whether it was a bad ignitor or a mis-fire that triggered the failure. A bad ignitor means that the spark that should have been created to light off the solid fuel burn was not generated due to manufacturing defects. Unfortunately there is no way to test for a bad ignitor before launch – as soon as you set it off to confirm it is working it becomes useless. The most you can do is ensure that an electrical signal is reaching the ignitor by running a small charge through the wires to establish continuity but not large enough (usually) to set it off. The launch team confirmed continuity during countdown. A mis-fire means the ignitor did generate the spark meant to ignite the solid fuel but the burn either did not initiate or was stopped prematurely. In the VAB it was confirmed that the ignitor was defective, which is good as it means we don’t need a new first stage booster, just a new ignitor.

Usually with a failure like this everything would have been fine – the rocket would have remained on the launch base and we probably would have tried again just to make sure the booster was really not able to fire. However we have suffered our first logic error via the AFCS. It’s easy to clean up syntax problems that generate errors when compiled but logic errors can usually only be found during actual execution.

Read the rest of this entry »

Oct 20 2017

Progeny Mk5 Block I Flight 1

The debut of our new, more powerful Mk5 rocket was marred by weather and a launch anomaly that led to only part of the rocket leaving the launch pad, impacting the water 8km downrange with a total loss of the payload

View full tweet timeline »

Oct 20 2017

Operations Summary – Week of 10/16/17

View post on imgur.com

View operations details »

Oct 06 2017

Operations Summary – Week of 10/2/17

View post on imgur.com

View operations details »

Oct 05 2017

Progeny Mk5 Design Review & Block I

Progenitor teams have been spending the last few weeks pouring over data gathered from the flights of the Progeny Mk4 and Mk5 to see how they have compared in order to judge the overall performance of the new Mk5 after its initial series of 5 launches last month to develop & test our automated control software. The Mk5 sports the M-315 automated control unit and replaces the old control unit with an extra battery, which makes it only 36kg heavier than the Mk4 when both lack payload instruments. The inline control unit adds a bit of length to the third stage, with the Mk5 measuring in at 9.5m tall versus the Mk4’s 9.3m. The only other variation for the Mk5 was that we launched it at an initial pitch of 87° versus the Mk4 which was launched at 85°. While we expected most if not all of these launches to reach similar heights of the Mk4 or even exceed them, none actually did.

The two related reasons behind the inability of the Mk5 to surpass the Mk4 were initial pitch and coast duration between staging. Although the rocket launched at 87°, the initial drag at the nose pitched it up to as high as 89.4° within 1 second. Ascending so close to vertical gave the Mk5 a slower start due to having to fight gravity more, and it never caught up to the Mk4 in terms of ascent speed, even if we account for the Mk4’s slightly lesser mass. Since the rocket was standing up so straight, it also took a longer time to pitch over, which meant the coast periods were longer, during which the Mk5 lost more speed than it would gain back between the first and second stages compared to the Mk4. Let’s go to the graphs!

View detailed analysis »