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.
Quote from: Skyrocket on 12/14/2015 02:14 pmNASA 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.
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?
Quote from: a_langwich on 12/14/2015 05:47 pmWonder 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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/14/2015 07:09 pmQuote from: a_langwich on 12/14/2015 05:47 pmWonder 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 KyleFair 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.
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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2015 01:40 amSo 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-2Kratos Defense & Security Systems is heavily involved in NASA/US Agencies Sounding Rocket Programmes
Quote from: Skyrocket on 12/14/2015 02:14 pmNASA 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:
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.
Quote from: block51 on 09/01/2016 06:52 pmThe 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?