Archive for the 'Rocket Design' Category
Project summary Daniel Will Braden

We had a rough day at the launch pad with a max height of 12 feet. And after viewing the video in class of Rye’s test rockets we have come to the conclusion that focusing our payload on the bottom while at the time was thought to have lowered our center of gravity in a good way, it actually lowered it too far and made the top free to go crazy. When the weight is focused at the top of the rocket, the bottom is more free to deviate, however the fins are there to stabilize that. Our wings were very large hoping that it would keep the rocket more stable, but the low center of gravity voided any use they would have been. Seeing other rockets though we think the wings would have done little but weigh it down and slow the acceleration.

Team #3 – Design and Project Summary

The design used for my rocket was something that would either help the performance or cause complete failure. The design was to add corkscrew like fins that wrapped around the bottle. The corkscrew design was made to assist the travel height of the rocket! Another part of the design was to wrap the pay load around the bottom of the rocket, using heavy duty tape to hold the actual payload then simple taping the load to the bottom (sort of like a shell), to also assist in the distribution of the weight . Also the placement of the payload was specific due to the how gravity and applied forces took place. The size of the bottle and ratio of fill was all chosen from the optimization process, which led to the 2L/0.5 Ratio design. The overall design had a concept and reason, but the small details of the design are what had the biggest impact of the performance. 

In summary sadly the design was a complete failure. If I were to re-design the rocket, i would first of all use a more steady material to make the corkscrew fins. Also make a attachment to minimize the cross section, for example a cone. Like I mentioned earlier the small details are what can make or break this project. 

TeamKyle Nick Steven Task 4 Rocket Design Analysis X

Task 4

Our approach was to make a simple design that was effective. As our results show this was the right decision. The rocket went about 43 meters and our cost was 69 according to the results

. The parabola was one of the best options for aerodynamics and reducing drag. we had no wings or fins on the sides so that the wind would not catch them and make the rocket go off course. For wings we used were angled and not very big. The correct angle and seize for this make the rocket spin and go almost straight up and straight down. The payload was put inside the parabola using tap and hot glue. It was curtail that weight was centered or else the rocket would go off course. The payload was placed at the top and helped keep it straight and bring the rocket back down. For the exhaust we used the 2.1 diameter with out the extended exhaust because they seemed to be affecting the water release. Overall the rocket seemed to preform very well. The performance was over the required height and it was very durable.  

 

Group 2 Task 4- Rocket Design

The rocket design was based on a 1.25L  Dr. Pepper bottle for its cylinder shape bottom half and long conical top which became the bottom of the rocket. 5 plastic pods carried the pay load and worked as ballast to improve the rockets vertical center of gravity. The pod where added to the outside of the rocket to prevent  changing the  usable internal volume of the bottle, but increased drag. Small fins where added on the bottom of the rocket and slightly angled to promote spin to keep the rocket flying straight in flight. Actual scores from competition and comparison of analysis data have not be reviewed yet. ( Because I MIKEY , cant get the numbers to make any sense) 

Team #5 (Ryan, Nic, Godlisen) Task 4 – Summary

Our rocket design was fairly simple. We used a 2 liter Mountain Dew bottle and taped our BBs to the end of of the bottle opposite of the nozzle. We cut out 3 fins from foam and hot glued them to the bottle. We used the spreadsheets to calculate that 900ml of water was the right amount of water to fill it with with 80psi. Overall, we were very pleased with our results. Our rocket reached 24.9 meters giving us a total score of 58.

Team 4 Rocket Design (Kevin, Dylan, Jacob) Sprite Zero

Kevin Wong – Blog and Construction

Jacob Simon- Optimization

Dylan Shank- Construction and Launch

 

The goal of the project is to create an optimized rocket using the following variables: the exhaust diameter, the fill ratio, the volume of the rocket, and the pressure.

 

Specifications/Materials

  • 2x 2 Liter Bottle
  • Washer with 1 cm diameter
  • Hot glue
  • Bottle end
  • Masking tape
  • Water
  • Air pump with a pressure gauge
  • Payload( 250 grams of steel shot)
  • Scissors/Saw
  • Tornado Tube
  • 1/3 Filling ratio (~666 mL)
  • 80 PSI
  • 250 gram payload
  • 1 cm diameter exhaust
  • total mass 338 g
  • Estimated Height 32.2 m
  • Score ~89.97 + The height measured

The optimal bottle is a standard 2 Liter bottle with a filling ratio of roughly 1/3 or .333

We decided to place our payload at the top of the rocket so it would fly more straight. Our logic comes from the idea of an arrow, the weight being in the front where the air is being “cut” by the moving object.

Instructions

  • The cone-like tip will be referred to as the top of the rocket
  • Main body refers to the 2 liter that was not cut up
  1. Collect materials
  2. Cut one of the bottles where the bottle no longer slopes
  3. (TIP: The following steps will vary on how much glue and tape you use, the less the better. Too little will also result in poor results).
  4. Turn cone-like bottle upside down and pour the steel shot in the cone.
  5. Tape and hot glue the steel shot into the cone and attempt to make it as tight as possible. Ensure that the cone is centered as much as possible
  6. When the glue dries solidly, put it on the bottom side of the other 2 liter bottle and then glue it slightly. 
  7. On the main body, place the washer inside of the exhaust.
  8. Firmly glue it and air-seal it on the outsides, this is important****
  9. Drill a 1 cm hole through the tornado tube
  10. Place the tornado tube on the exhaust end of the tube. 
  11. On the other end of the tornado tube place a bottle end so that it firmly fits on the test launch pad.

Post-Launch Reflection

Max Height 10.98 m

Mass: 92 g

Max Acceleration: 7.39 ms^-1

Final Score: -58

Because we did not get to test-launch (bitter perhaps?), we really did not know what kind of adjustments we needed to do to efficiently solve the task. Just by observation we realized a majority of the rockets crashed and burned. In response, we decided to add additional mass and get more glue onto the nose of the rocket. It didn’t help. The other problem that occured is the nozzle broke during the loading-session. This made the rocket launch more horizontally, which does not count for anything. It wastes a lot of the potential energy on something that is not taken into account or apart of the competition. Another problem we realized that the glue and tape compartment did not hold together inside of the nose-piece. It shifted, allowing the steel shot to move around and tamper with the center of gravity. This added to the horizontal projectile motion problem discussed with the nozzle. 

 

What we would do differently:

  • Test Launch
  • The compartment with the steel shot would be Stronger, possibly held together with a combination of plastic, tape, and glue.
  • The nozzle would be melted in. Rather than combining the nose cone to the body with glue, I would have melted the plastic together from the inside. Glue just won’t work that magnitude of force.
  • Add more steel shot for greater mass. We actually lost a decent amount during construction. 
  • I would have loved to try a “gyroscopic” type rocket. like a football, if you spin an object, it will maintain its intertia better. The idea was thrown out because we felt like too much energy would be wasted just on the spin itself. Potentially, this would mean a whole new redesign because fins would need to be strategically placed.