Author Topic: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket  (Read 5595 times)

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 51
NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« on: 12/14/2015 02:14 PM »
NASA plans to test a new sounding rocket, the Peregrine. (some info: http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/Sounding%20Rockets%20Annual%20Report%202013_sm.pdf)

Originally, the first test flight of a Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine combination (NASA 12.077 GT) was planned for late 2014, to be followed by a Talos Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine (NASA 12.079 GT) and a Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine with S-19 guidance unit (NASA 12.078 GT). These flights have apparently slipped.

Currently, the Blue Book (http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/BlueBook.pdf) only mentions NASA 12.078 GT for September 2016.

Has anyone info on the status of the Peregrine program.

Offline IanO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Portland, OR
    • Portland State Aerospace Society
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 127
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #1 on: 12/14/2015 04:06 PM »
NASA plans to test a new sounding rocket, the Peregrine. (some info: http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/Sounding%20Rockets%20Annual%20Report%202013_sm.pdf)

Originally, the first test flight of a Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine combination (NASA 12.077 GT) was planned for late 2014, to be followed by a Talos Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine (NASA 12.079 GT) and a Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine with S-19 guidance unit (NASA 12.078 GT). These flights have apparently slipped.

Currently, the Blue Book (http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/BlueBook.pdf) only mentions NASA 12.078 GT for September 2016.

Has anyone info on the status of the Peregrine program.

The last mention I'd heard of "Peregrine" in regards to NASA was a technology transfer of a paraffin-wax hybrid motor technology from Stanford for use in sounding rockets.  But I see no mention of hybrid technology in this PDF.  NASA did a test fire of this motor in 2013:

psas.pdx.edu - to orbit with stone knives and bearskins

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #2 on: 12/14/2015 04:26 PM »
NASA plans to test a new sounding rocket, the Peregrine. (some info: http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/Sounding%20Rockets%20Annual%20Report%202013_sm.pdf)

Originally, the first test flight of a Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine combination (NASA 12.077 GT) was planned for late 2014, to be followed by a Talos Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine (NASA 12.079 GT) and a Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine with S-19 guidance unit (NASA 12.078 GT). These flights have apparently slipped.

Currently, the Blue Book (http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/BlueBook.pdf) only mentions NASA 12.078 GT for September 2016.

Has anyone info on the status of the Peregrine program.

The last mention I'd heard of "Peregrine" in regards to NASA was a technology transfer of a paraffin-wax hybrid motor technology from Stanford for use in sounding rockets.  But I see no mention of hybrid technology in this PDF.  NASA did a test fire of this motor in 2013:

...

Apparently the program has replaced the hybrid motor by a solid-fuel motor after this 2013 hybrid test. In February 2015, a solid fuel motor was tested for the Peregrine program (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/new-sounding-rocket-motor-for-first-test-firing) and all recent publications mention a solid motor.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2015 04:32 PM by Skyrocket »

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #3 on: 12/14/2015 05:47 PM »

Apparently the program has replaced the hybrid motor by a solid-fuel motor after this 2013 hybrid test. In February 2015, a solid fuel motor was tested for the Peregrine program (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/new-sounding-rocket-motor-for-first-test-firing) and all recent publications mention a solid motor.

Wonder why they decided to build a solid in-house?  Doesn't Orbital-ATK (among others) have items like this in inventory?  Wouldn't they have more expertise in tweaking the propellant and burn profile?  Are there surplus SM-2s or SM-3s which could replace the Terrier base?

I would guess it looked cheaper on paper to do it themselves, with various overheads and facility expenses paid by other groups' budgets.  Before the year(s) long delays.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12124
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2840
  • Likes Given: 496
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #4 on: 12/14/2015 07:09 PM »
Wonder why they decided to build a solid in-house?  Doesn't Orbital-ATK (among others) have items like this in inventory?  Wouldn't they have more expertise in tweaking the propellant and burn profile?  Are there surplus SM-2s or SM-3s which could replace the Terrier base?
The update includes the following sentence:  "The Peregrine sounding rocket motor started as a NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) project and was designed in-house by NASA engineers, but was built in cooperation with commercial suppliers from across America."  [my emphasis]

 - Ed Kyle

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #5 on: 12/14/2015 08:30 PM »
Wonder why they decided to build a solid in-house?  Doesn't Orbital-ATK (among others) have items like this in inventory?  Wouldn't they have more expertise in tweaking the propellant and burn profile?  Are there surplus SM-2s or SM-3s which could replace the Terrier base?
The update includes the following sentence:  "The Peregrine sounding rocket motor started as a NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) project and was designed in-house by NASA engineers, but was built in cooperation with commercial suppliers from across America."  [my emphasis]

 - Ed Kyle

Fair enough, but that phrase is broad enough to cover using commercial suppliers for the parts and pouring it in-house.  :)   I suppose it probably does mean they contracted some commercial entity to custom-make their design.

Found an AMRDEC PR about the Feb 2015 test
http://www.army.mil/article/143045/NASA_test_fires_new_rocket_with_Army_developed_igniter_motor/

I guess, in answer to my earlier question about why not SM-2/3, the sustainer motor is the piece they feel is most specific to their sounding rocket profile, and perhaps with it they can support Talos/Terrier/various-other-"Standard Missile" booster stages?  Maybe the SM-2/3's produce unacceptably high acceleration loads for their payloads?  Otherwise, it seems like there would be surplus inventory of such missiles, since DOD is constantly iterating Block II-III-IV SR/ER some to Romania some to Poland some to Israel some to Japan.  Seems like every Fourth of July fireworks stand is getting some these days.  :)


Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #6 on: 12/14/2015 10:12 PM »
Wonder why they decided to build a solid in-house?  Doesn't Orbital-ATK (among others) have items like this in inventory?  Wouldn't they have more expertise in tweaking the propellant and burn profile?  Are there surplus SM-2s or SM-3s which could replace the Terrier base?
The update includes the following sentence:  "The Peregrine sounding rocket motor started as a NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) project and was designed in-house by NASA engineers, but was built in cooperation with commercial suppliers from across America."  [my emphasis]

 - Ed Kyle

Fair enough, but that phrase is broad enough to cover using commercial suppliers for the parts and pouring it in-house.  :)   I suppose it probably does mean they contracted some commercial entity to custom-make their design.

Found an AMRDEC PR about the Feb 2015 test
http://www.army.mil/article/143045/NASA_test_fires_new_rocket_with_Army_developed_igniter_motor/

I guess, in answer to my earlier question about why not SM-2/3, the sustainer motor is the piece they feel is most specific to their sounding rocket profile, and perhaps with it they can support Talos/Terrier/various-other-"Standard Missile" booster stages?  Maybe the SM-2/3's produce unacceptably high acceleration loads for their payloads?  Otherwise, it seems like there would be surplus inventory of such missiles, since DOD is constantly iterating Block II-III-IV SR/ER some to Romania some to Poland some to Israel some to Japan.  Seems like every Fourth of July fireworks stand is getting some these days.  :)

The SM-2 sustainer motor (Mk.104) is used for sounding rockets - the Terrier Lynx: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/terrier_lynx.htm

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12124
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2840
  • Likes Given: 496
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #7 on: 12/15/2015 01:40 AM »
So who is the contractor for this 20 inch diameter solid motor?  Is it Orbital ATK, the Oriole motor manufacturer?  Is it Aerojet Rocketdyne, the other major missile motor maker?  Is it a newcomer like UP Aerospace? 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3269
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #8 on: 12/15/2015 03:10 AM »
So who is the contractor for this 20 inch diameter solid motor?  Is it Orbital ATK, the Oriole motor manufacturer?  Is it Aerojet Rocketdyne, the other major missile motor maker?  Is it a newcomer like UP Aerospace? 

 - Ed Kyle
Raytheon Company for SM-2
Kratos Defense & Security Systems is heavily involved in NASA/US Agencies Sounding Rocket Programmes
« Last Edit: 12/15/2015 04:11 AM by russianhalo117 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12124
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2840
  • Likes Given: 496
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #9 on: 12/15/2015 04:09 PM »
So who is the contractor for this 20 inch diameter solid motor?  Is it Orbital ATK, the Oriole motor manufacturer?  Is it Aerojet Rocketdyne, the other major missile motor maker?  Is it a newcomer like UP Aerospace? 

 - Ed Kyle
Raytheon Company for SM-2
Kratos Defense & Security Systems is heavily involved in NASA/US Agencies Sounding Rocket Programmes
Raytheon is a systems integrator, as I understand things, for SM-2 and SM-3.  Aerojet and/or ATK made solids for Raytheon's missiles.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline launchwatcher

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #10 on: 04/24/2016 08:10 PM »
NASA plans to test a new sounding rocket, the Peregrine. (some info: http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/Sounding%20Rockets%20Annual%20Report%202013_sm.pdf)

Originally, the first test flight of a Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine combination (NASA 12.077 GT) was planned for late 2014, to be followed by a Talos Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine (NASA 12.079 GT) and a Terrier Mk.70 Peregrine with S-19 guidance unit (NASA 12.078 GT). These flights have apparently slipped.

Currently, the Blue Book (http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/BlueBook.pdf) only mentions NASA 12.078 GT for September 2016.

Has anyone info on the status of the Peregrine program.

The last mention I'd heard of "Peregrine" in regards to NASA was a technology transfer of a paraffin-wax hybrid motor technology from Stanford for use in sounding rockets.  But I see no mention of hybrid technology in this PDF.  NASA did a test fire of this motor in 2013:


They may still be testing.  This week (on 4/21) I witnessed an engine test at Ames of some sort from the berm along Stevens Creek, maybe 2000 feet away.   Ended with a thump and possibly something flying a short distance through the air.

Offline block51

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #11 on: 09/01/2016 06:52 PM »
Wonder why they decided to build a solid in-house?  Doesn't Orbital-ATK (among others) have items like this in inventory?  Wouldn't they have more expertise in tweaking the propellant and burn profile?  Are there surplus SM-2s or SM-3s which could replace the Terrier base?

The solid Peregrine motor was designed by a team at Marshall (Civil Servants? Contractors?) with help from contractors on the NSROC II contract at Wallops. The case was made by a company in Boston (the name escapes me) and it was poured by someone else (contractor, not NASA). I'll ping a buddy and see if I can get the various names of companies.

The first test burn (at Marshall) resulted in a failure about halfway into the burn when the case burned through near the aft. This failure was predicted by a coworker that worked on the design. The second and third burns (which have taken place this year) at WFF also resulted in the same or similar failure, but it was expected. They have made some minor design tweaks (gluing in some insulation or propellant in some places) to see if it does what they think it should do. Basically the design as is doesn't work.

My personal take on the program (albeit, it's a bit harsh) was that it was a jobs program for MSFC/ a way to put pressure on Magellan Aerospace, of Canada, that manufactures the Black Brant V rocket which is a WORKHORSE in the NASA sounding rocket program. There have been thrust instabilities / a nasty resonant oscillation in the burn of Black Brant motors over the past few years. The biggest issue (aside from higher vibration environments on the payload) is exceeding the qual specs of the FTS used at WSMR. WSMR flight safety is not too keen on the FTS being in an environment that exceeds qual levels for obvious reasons. Right now there is a deal wherein if the launches at WSMR make it through a gate (in 3-D space and time), they won't cut down the rocket if they see the onset of a thrust instability. IF, however, it starts to show a thrust instability before the gate they will cut down the rocket. That makes for a bad day for everyone, especially the science team whose payload is flying on the rocket.

Side note: I'd say about 50% to 75% of the motors that the NASA sounding rocket program launches are Mk. 12 Terriers, Mk. 70 Terriers, and Black Brant V's. Also, the reason Black Brant motors are used over Oriole motors (a very good nearly drop in replacement) are that the Black Brant motors are much cheaper.

More side notes:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/motor-burn-scheduled-for-march-19-at-wallops
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/motor-burn-scheduled-for-august-26-at-wallops

Final side note, a quote from a friend:
"Dynamic Flowform made the case, AAE did the insulation, and Aerojet lined and cast the motor. Marshall f&*ked up the design..." His words, not mine! Haha.

Attached photo is the current NASA sounding rocket stable.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #12 on: 09/01/2016 07:41 PM »

The first test burn (at Marshall) resulted in a failure about halfway into the burn when the case burned through near the aft. This failure was predicted by a coworker that worked on the design. The second and third burns (which have taken place this year) at WFF also resulted in the same or similar failure, but it was expected. They have made some minor design tweaks (gluing in some insulation or propellant in some places) to see if it does what they think it should do. Basically the design as is doesn't work.

Does that mean, that the Peregrine is basically dead or is still work been done to correct the flaws?

Offline block51

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA's new Peregrine sounding rocket
« Reply #13 on: 09/01/2016 07:56 PM »

The first test burn (at Marshall) resulted in a failure about halfway into the burn when the case burned through near the aft. This failure was predicted by a coworker that worked on the design. The second and third burns (which have taken place this year) at WFF also resulted in the same or similar failure, but it was expected. They have made some minor design tweaks (gluing in some insulation or propellant in some places) to see if it does what they think it should do. Basically the design as is doesn't work.

Does that mean, that the Peregrine is basically dead or is still work been done to correct the flaws?

"If you got the money baby, I've got the time". A little less song lyric-ey: If money becomes available to implement a redesign and make more motors then it'll keep going. It was funded, to my understanding, outside of normal NASA sounding rocket buckets. That kind of stuff is light years above my pay grade! I would assume it's dead, but you know what they say about making assumptions.

Tags: