Tag Archive: Progeny Mk5

Oct 17 2017

Progeny Mk5 Flight 6 Analysis

The end of last week saw what we like to call the “final flight” of the Progeny Mk5. Although the Mk5 will continue to serve our sub-orbital needs the rocket has been redesigned into two new Block I and Block II variants that will be the only type of Mk5 flown going forward. This Mk5 was built from spare parts originally meant to replace any broken/damaged parts for the Mk5’s initial 5-launch campaign, which didn’t need them, and the boosters are less powerful than the newer Block variants. We’re happy to say the launch was a complete success and a great end to the initial run of Mk5 rockets, which only suffered one failure.

We made some changes to the flight profile of this launch, which was the first Mk5 to leave the pad at an 85° pitch angle rather than 87°. Instead of waiting for the nose to drop 1.5° of pitch before igniting the next booster, we only waited for 1° and when the 3rd stage liquid booster engine fired the Automated Flight Control System took control of the throttle to maintain a TWR of 2 until it detected dynamic pressure begin to fall, at which point it throttled up to full while ensuring pressure continued to drop. These changes were made to see how a faster vertical ascent would affect the flight when launched from a lower initial pitch.

Upon launch the nose raised about 1.1°, which is similar to the performance of the Progeny Mk4. The shorter coast periods had no ill-effect on the rocket due to the higher pressures encountered when given less time to slow down. The auto-throttle of the third stage booster worked great and the rocket coasted to an apokee of 107km while gathering data from both its scientific instruments. It fell back through the atmosphere with a 25s comm blackout due to re-entry heat and splashed down in the Kerblantic 67km downrange after a total flight time of 8m37s. You can view complete telemetry for the mission here.

View detailed telemetry analysis »

Oct 13 2017

Operations Summary – Week of 10/9/17

View post on imgur.com

View operations details »

Oct 13 2017

Progeny Mk5 Flight 6 (Gravimetric & Engineering Studies)

Pieced together from spare parts meant to replace any faulty/failed parts for the original 5 planned launches, a 6th base-spec Mk5 heads back into space for one final hurrah before the new Block I comes into service

View full tweet timeline »

Oct 12 2017

Introducing the Progeny Mk5 Block II

The Mk5 Block II has been finalized! This bigger variant of the Mk5 adds power with 4 strap-on boosters and an extended liquid fuel tank. The strap-on boosters are an upgraded version of the Mk1-B booster, which can now output 21.795kN of thrust at sea level with greater efficiency as opposed to 18.75kn. Upon liftoff all 5 lower boosters will ignite for a total thrust-to-weight ratio of 5, which is 1G greater than the Mk5 Block I to help compensate for both the increased mass & length, which could cause the rocket to stand up a bit more as lift at the nose will have a greater torque effect with the nearly 1m extension. The strap-on boosters will burn for just over 6 seconds before being decoupled to leave the core booster firing with enough thrust to continue pushing at 3+Gs for another 15 seconds before it too is discarded. The third stage booster has been set to a TWR of 2 at 9km ASL and once ignited will burn for 15.5 seconds. The stage four liquid booster will be able to burn well over a minute or two depending on how its throttle is set during ascent.

The added power of the Block II should allow us to extend our reach into space beyond the boundaries of Low-Kerbin Orbit (LKO) which extends from 70km – 250km above Kerbin’s atmosphere. Although the rocket is almost 500kg heaver than the Block I it still manages to deliver almost 1km/s more deltaV, which when modeled with the highest Mk5 trajectory pushed our apokee out beyond 300km – and that was assuming a coast period up into the vacuum of space after the LF/O engine burnt out so with a continuous burn from the Block II’s double-capacity liquid fuel tanks we may even be able to get higher.

All this speculation will be put to the test when we launch our first Block II, which is currently scheduled to occur no earlier than November 15th. The launch date & time will be finalized later this month after we see how the Block I performs, as any defects found with it will also most likely affect the Block II. Despite the 4 added boosters Lead Engineer Simon reports that the VAB will only need two additional days to install them, giving us roughly a 2.5 week minimum turnaround between Block II launches as opposed to the 2 weeks needed for the Block I. Additional details can be viewed in the blueprint below.

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 »

Sep 22 2017

Operations Summary – Week of 9/18/17

View post on imgur.com

View operations details »

Sep 22 2017

Progeny Mk5 Flight 5

The final launch of the initial design for the Mk5 doesn’t reach the heights we were hoping for but it does at least set the record for being the first successful flight that was fully automated

View full tweet timeline »

Sep 21 2017

Progeny Mk5 Flight 4 Analysis

With three recovered launches so far, the Mk5 was on track to becoming the most successful new rocket design on record until yesterday’s fourth launch, which unfortunately broke apart during the third stage boost 64 seconds after lift off. Progenitor engineers have been pouring over all various data collected, including telemetry data received from the rocket prior to its breakup as well as launch videos, to try to determine what went wrong, under pressure due to the fact that of they can’t figure it out we would be forced to delay the fifth launch set to take place tomorrow, on the anniversary of our first rocket launch. While they are still not 100% sure as to what happened, with the data available they have come to the best conclusion possible, which thankfully will not result in a postponement of tomorrow’s launch as the circumstances that led to this recent failure should be avoidable for future launches.

The conclusion reached is that upper-level wind shear literally tore the rocket apart, exacerbated by its high rate of speed at the time. Normally, the rocket would not be traveling as fast as it was but an error in the flight control software led to the third stage throttle being set to full thrust immediately after ignition rather than after dynamic pressure had begun to fall as the rocket climbed higher into the atmosphere. Engineers calculated that the wind shear alone could probably have still destroyed the rocket, but the excessive velocity made it all but impossible to survive.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sep 20 2017

Progeny Mk5 Flight 4

The first failure of the Mk5, however it is not immediately apparent whether the main cause of the RUD is due to the design of the rocket or conditions present on the day of the launch

View full tweet timeline »

Older posts «

» Newer posts