SystemsGo SETX Build

[rocket1student]

Hello, For those of you who have seen my last thread regarding my rocket competition (

Hello everyone, I am in a rocket 1 class at my high school. The program (Systemsgo) is intended to lead students through 4 years of high school, learning about rockets. Although since the class is an elective, students 9-12th may start the program. I've done some reading on TRF about this particular "competition", but some years have passed and some changes have been made to the rules since those threads. The main rules include:
1. Must weigh at or under 30 lbs
2. Must have dual deployment
2. No sharp metal edges/nose cone
3. Must land within 1000 ft. radius of takeoff.

Although these rules are set into place by the company that started the program, my own rocket teacher/mentor has given us his own requirements to challenge our skills. The biggest being that we cannot use a kit. (i assume the reason being is so that we will know our rocket and it's capabilities as well as possible). Our Mission is to take a rocket that fits within the level 1 requirements to a distance of 1 mile with a 1 pound payload safely and recover the rocket. Within my group, our current goal is to come up with an extremely "out of the box" idea for our rocket to impress anyone who we present it to. I am quite positive that my group will come up with something cool, as we have been taught to use creative thinking skills by our teacher. Just wondering if anyone has any useful info or suggestions that would help my group as we begin the process of fully designing our first rocket. (We have access to Rocksim.)

I also want to clarify that my post is not intended to create disagreements or severe questioning about the program being "legit". As far as the program goes, I feel it is an amazing opportunity to be able to learn as much as I am at my current young age about rocketry. SystemsGo is a great program, and has been used perfectly by my teacher to adequately challenge several important STEM skills. (I cannot speak for other students/teachers.)

)
, i'm back with more info. My teacher has given us a new challenge as we start the design process of this year. Our main rocket body must be made out of something named PoleCrete. It is a pole foam used to stabilize poles in the ground. Although I was skeptical to use this particular compound at first, i've been assured that our rocket will not be going fast enough to need a different material. Our own mold has to be made, which is challenging but doable. My group also has connections to machining shops that are possibly willing to help. As of now, our idea is to have the nose cone and body tube poured out of a custom made mold and then coat the rocket somehow. If done correctly, the foam body tube would eliminate the need for an engine tube. Once again, does anyone have any useful tips as we think through this process? PS: Would also appreciate any tips/info on anybody open to the idea of sponsoring a high school team of students building a bad to the bone rocket?

Thanks.

 

[kramer714]

not what you want to hear but.....

I cant figure out why they would want you to add the requirement for a polecrete bodytube. Forget about all the other postings. Does your teacher really understand what you will have to do to make this work. Yes you can make this work. I owned a company that molded structural foam, and yes you can make this work. But it will be very difficult, and hard for the scope of the program. The scope isnt to make a foam rocket, it is to make a foam rocket... and launch it a mile up... while holding a one lb payload.... and land it withing 1,000 feet of the pad....

Simple things like an ejection charge become MUCH harder, holding pressure for ejection charges, fin attachment, even a launch lug becomes much harder, oh and urethane foams burn, among other challenges. I wouldn't be this critical if the team had experience with mid / high powered scratch built rockets.

It is pretty obvious (dont take this the wrong way) that you and your team dont have much experience with high power rockets, adding this to the challenge isnt helpful. The comment about not needing a motor tube kinda makes my point.

Next comment (please take this the right way) is that it sounds like you want to make a 'bad to the bone' rocket, great, but first make a dumb simple boring rocket to learn what you need to do. Then do a slightly less boring dual deploy rocket before going further. This is my advice to you. I have seen too many school projects that dont use a building block approach, but want to start with the aggressive cool stuff first.

Mike K

Flame Proofing - yeah before you flame me, sure you can make it work, I have made molded foam rockets and nose cones, high power. The challenge now is making molds understanding how urethane foam cures (a little water will change things, a lot, plus mold release for poured urethane is fun, how to machine free rise foam etc. Not to mention kids are not really good about safety gear and basic industrial hygiene, foam dust isn't good for lungs or eyes etc....

 

[rocket1student]

not what you want to hear but.....

I cant figure out why they would want you to use polecrete for a rocket. Forget about all the other postings. Does your teacher really understand what you will have to do to make this work. Yes you can make this work. I owned a company that molded structural foam, and yes you can make this work. But it will be very difficult, and hard for the scope of the program. The scope isnt to make a foam rocket, it is to make a foam rocket... and launch it a mile up... while holding a one lb payload.... and land it withing 1,000 feet of the pad....

Simple things like an ejection charge become MUCH harder, holding pressure for ejection charges, fin attachment, even a launch lug becomes much harder, oh and urethane foams burn, among other challenges. I wouldn't be this critical if the team had experience with mid / high powered scratch built rockets.

It is pretty obvious (dont take this the wrong way) that you and your team dont have much experience with high power rockets, adding this to the challenge isnt helpful. The comment about not needing a motor tube kinda makes my point.

Next comment (please take this the right way) is that it sounds like you want to make a 'bad to the bone' rocket, great, but first make a dumb simple boring rocket to learn what you need to do. Then do a slightly less boring dual deploy rocket before going further. This is my advice to you. I have seen too many school projects that dont use a building block approach, but want to start with the aggressive cool stuff first.

Mike K

Flame Proofing - yeah before you flame me, sure you can make it work, I have made molded foam rockets and nose cones, high power. The challenge now is making molds understanding how urethane foam cures (a little water will change things, a lot, plus mold release for poured urethane is fun, how to machine free rise foam etc. Not to mention kids are not really good about safety gear and basic industrial hygiene, foam dust isn't good for lungs or eyes etc....

I see your point and appreciate the feedback, my mentor isn’t the normal science teacher and often gives us challenges that would be considered “too hard”. i’m not very knowledgeable about rockets yet, to your point… but if given the challenge of making a foam rocket go 1 mile high as opposed to a normal rocket, why not choose to learn as much as possible? I get that it’s not the conventional way of starting off but i never claimed to be doing so. Everything being done is within safety standards and while supervised, so I guess I don’t see the problem with doing harder work? Especially if I’m learning what to do in the process of
Also, ejection charges are also not the only way to get your chutes out, are they?

None of this to be rude or disrespectful, I just feel as though there also has to be overachievers. It seems like a group of well rounded teenagers could build a kit rocket and succeed, so why not have something especially impressive for some teenagers to do?

 

[rocket1student]

not what you want to hear but.....

I cant figure out why they would want you to add the requirement for a polecrete bodytube. Forget about all the other postings. Does your teacher really understand what you will have to do to make this work. Yes you can make this work. I owned a company that molded structural foam, and yes you can make this work. But it will be very difficult, and hard for the scope of the program. The scope isnt to make a foam rocket, it is to make a foam rocket... and launch it a mile up... while holding a one lb payload.... and land it withing 1,000 feet of the pad....

Simple things like an ejection charge become MUCH harder, holding pressure for ejection charges, fin attachment, even a launch lug becomes much harder, oh and urethane foams burn, among other challenges. I wouldn't be this critical if the team had experience with mid / high powered scratch built rockets.

It is pretty obvious (dont take this the wrong way) that you and your team dont have much experience with high power rockets, adding this to the challenge isnt helpful. The comment about not needing a motor tube kinda makes my point.

Next comment (please take this the right way) is that it sounds like you want to make a 'bad to the bone' rocket, great, but first make a dumb simple boring rocket to learn what you need to do. Then do a slightly less boring dual deploy rocket before going further. This is my advice to you. I have seen too many school projects that dont use a building block approach, but want to start with the aggressive cool stuff first.

Mike K

Flame Proofing - yeah before you flame me, sure you can make it work, I have made molded foam rockets and nose cones, high power. The challenge now is making molds understanding how urethane foam cures (a little water will change things, a lot, plus mold release for poured urethane is fun, how to machine free rise foam etc. Not to mention kids are not really good about safety gear and basic industrial hygiene, foam dust isn't good for lungs or eyes etc....

My veteran rocket teacher gave us the restriction of not using an engine tube strictly based off of the foam rocket idea. Although not easy, making the spot in a piece of foam flush with a motor doesnt seem impossible. But if it was easy, anybody could do it.

 

[kramer714]

trying to help.... You are making my point.

The problem is you don't know what you don't know yet. By trying to do the hard step without a basic understanding of what you are trying to do, you wont really learn much. Comments like ejection charges are not the only way to get your chute out is true, but understanding the differences in complexity of of a non pyro ejection vs a pyro ejection without actually ever building, flying or rigging a rocket is kind of pointless.

Let me give you an analogy, I sail boats. IF you want to learn how to sail, you start with something simple. Understand how the changes in the SINGLE line change the speed, ability to sail into the wind, how the angle of the boat changes the tack etc. Then try a more complicated boat (see the pictures), now that I know how to sail, i can learn how to sail a high performance boat. If i start with the high performance boat without knowing how to sail you will be hard pressed to learn the basics.

I think the folks here would be more impressed and more likely to help if you had a realistic development / test plan. Nothing wrong with challenging, but having a plan on how to achieve it learning / smart.

 

[rocket1student]

trying to help.... You are making my point.

The problem is you don't know what you don't know yet. By trying to do the hard step without a basic understanding of what you are trying to do, you wont really learn much. Comments like ejection charges are not the only way to gt your chute out is true, but understanding the complexity of of a non pyro ejection vs a pyro ejection without actually ever building, flying or rigging a rocket is kind of pointless.

Let me give you an analogy, I sail boats. IF you want to learn how to sail, you start with something simple. Understand how the changes in the SINGLE line change the speed, ability to sail into the wind, how the angle of the boat changes the tack etc. Then try a more complicated boat (see the pictures), now that I know how to sail, i can learn how to sail a high performance boat. If i start with the high performance boat without knowing how to sail you will be hard pressed to learn the basics.



View attachment 624938

View attachment 624939

Correct, if you are going to start out by doing something I agree that you should start appropriately. I appreciate the response, just don’t know how useful it will be when I still have to build a foam rocket, Lol. I apologize again if there was any chance I came across as rude. It seems like you’re pretty knowledgeable about this stuff (foams and rockets alike), so if there was any further direction you could point us it would be appreciated. The next time I ask for opinions on here I will likely have a full plan, just also thought it was an odd idea for people to ponder on, I mean all I've been thinking about these challenges are how cool they are. I might as well try.

 

[kramer714]

but first make a dumb simple boring rocket to learn what you need to do. Then do a slightly less boring dual deploy and learn how to do that before going further. This is my advice to you.

 

[rfjustin]

Hello, For those of you who have seen my last thread regarding my rocket competition (

)
, i'm back with more info. My teacher has given us a new challenge as we start the design process of this year. Our main rocket body must be made out of something named PoleCrete. It is a pole foam used to stabilize poles in the ground. Although I was skeptical to use this particular compound at first, i've been assured that our rocket will not be going fast enough to need a different material. Our own mold has to be made, which is challenging but doable. My group also has connections to machining shops that are possibly willing to help. As of now, our idea is to have the nose cone and body tube poured out of a custom made mold and then coat the rocket somehow. If done correctly, the foam body tube would eliminate the need for an engine tube. Once again, does anyone have any useful tips as we think through this process? PS: Would also appreciate any tips/info on anybody open to the idea of sponsoring a high school team of students building a bad to the bone rocket?

Thanks.

"My teacher has given us a new challenge as we start the design process of this year. Our main rocket body must be made out of something named PoleCrete."

That is by far the most random and irresponsible directive I have ever seen in 25+ years in rocketry. Here kids, build a rocket out of a two part expanding foam product and pour into molds we don't have, and then reinforce it somehow later, WTF!?

Your teacher needs to collaborate with other teachers and rocketry leaders that have prior practical experience with Systemsgo. You kids need an effective coach, and your teacher needs an effective mentor.

@kramer714 is 100% on point here, get a simple dual deploy rocket up and down safely, learn how to do that before going further.

 

[BABAR]

. Once again, does anyone have any useful tips as we think through this process?

yup.

don’t do it.

here’s a video of the the stuff being used for it’s INTENDED purpose.



looks like works (at least initially, I’d like to see a follow up at a week, a month, and a year) great for resisting COMPRESSION forces.

I have no doubt you could build a static model of a rocket with this stuff. I don’t see this working well in a dynamic, FLYING rocket. Look at the “cleanup” part at the end (In fact the title picture tells the tale.)I can buy that the metal spades CUT the foam circumferentially, but after those axial cuts, they just ripped the stuff off. The stuff has little or no SHEAR strength at all (not a criticism, it’s INTENDED purpose doesn’t REQUIRE significant shear strength.)

I’m an L-0, but even I can appreciate that fin-body joints, motor to body joints (aka motor mount), and ejection forces are NOT going to be in compression.

the stuff MAY work if you can incorporate an endoskeleton or exoskeleton, maybe some sort of mesh or netting, integrated into the foam.

i have seen rocket build threads where High Power builders ”foam” the fin can, I may be wrong but I think it’s more to prevent fin “waggle”, although the relative large contact surface area may also provide some adhesion.

don‘t want to yellow your cornflakes, but in regards to rocketry, I am wondering if your teacher knows his or her rear end from a hole in the ground (with or without PoleCrete.). I would however be glad to be proven wrong!

 

[Rschub]

I am going to be contrary, because why not? I think it is doable.

The key is to have a strong backbone to take the loads and have the foam just be along for the ride,

One could use this motor

AEROTECH K250W-PS 54MM X 673MM SINGLE USE LMS 1-MOTOR KIT - 11250P​

and glue the [plywood] fins directly to the case, then pour the foam in around it, or glue the motor/fin assembly in after pouring.

The motor force will be transfered through the entire surface area of the case and fins to the body. You can wrap your shock cord around the forward closure and the parachute could be attached there. Use single deploy with a chute release. Loose fit of the foam nose cone.

Size the rocket body to reach the desired altitude. It can be big and fat and high drag for that motor. Use a...umm...long launch tower. Like, 3 pole vaulting poles in a triangle. Easy peasy

Edit: Actually one could use any DMS motor and wrap and glue the shock cord to the case for attachment.

 

[BABAR]

The key is to have a strong backbone to take the loads and have the foam just be along for the ride,

concur, but what‘s the point? The rocket would fly both with and without the foam, and probably better without.

 

[Rschub]

concur, but what‘s the point? The rocket would fly both with and without the foam, and probably better without.

The Space Shuttle had plenty of non structural foam on it. The point is to build the rocket and pass the class, and learn from the experience.

 

[NTP2]

Ok I’m going to give you some advice coming from a fellow teen and high school student, DO NOT DO IT!!!!!
Listen to all the smart people here and go to your teacher and tell them that it’s not a good idea.

 

[Rschub]

I have worked with difficult customers [bosses, teachers, coworkers etc. ] If you become known as the person who says, no or not possible all the time, it will hinder you in the future.

If the "K" motor is too scary, I did a quick RSAERO sim this morning of a 3" Dia x 36 in rocket using a DMS I-65P, if you can keep it at 5 lbs or less it sims to 5400 feet or so.
I would use a LOC tube as the mold lined with paper or wax paper and cut it away after pouring. 3D print head end deployment nose cone.

 

[OzHybrid]

The objective of any rocket launch is to do it as safely as possible. By limiting yourself to poor material choices, the safety has already been compromised.
If you were adding the foam as a method of increasing strength/ bonding, it might be an idea worth testing. Some kits have used it as a motor tube bonding to airframe assist. I feel that more strength could have been obtained with an additional centering ring and good bonding rather than a whole lot of additional weight in a bad position.

To give you an idea, using good materials and an F motor can take you to over 10,000Ft

https://tripoli.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=795696&item_id=94219

You've not published your full scope for this project. When complying with a directive in a design scope, the wording is important. This could be a test of your English interpretation skills as well.
There have been many scope of works written over the years where the specifier did not get what they wanted, but it did meet the scope......and they had to pay up....

 

[samb]

FYI to the TRFers…

Systemsgo has been operating their aerospace stem programs for some time now. The amateur rocketry projects operate outside of the NAR or Tripoli.

https://www.systemsgo.org/

 

[kramer714]

Here is the problem,

1. The teacher hasn't given them 1 challenge, they have given the students 5+1 challenges
   1. build a high powered rocket - by a team without relevant experience
   2. with dual deploy- by a team without relevant experience
   3. to a specific altitude- by a team without relevant experience
   4. carrying a 1 lb payload- by a team without relevant experience
   5. made from foam (not just foam but a very poor choice of foam)- by a team without relevant experience
   6. the plus 1 = figure-out how to work as a team without experience to a defined schedule
2. The student doesn't understand (or is blinded by exuberance) that you don't try and solve all of the challenges with one step.

What they dont understand (it happens when you are young) is all of these requirements are achieveable, just trying something with all of these objectives, at once isnt how you learn, isnt a way to be sucessfull, and will take longer, and cost more than doing incremental steps.

For you students out there, at the day job (aerospace structural parts) we never fail the first article tests, they are actually pretty anti climatic, almost a check off the box kind of thing. Why are we so successful? Because we are so much smarter than everyone else, and can skip right to the end... actually no. Because everthing has been designed and tested agasint a plan before you ever build the first article (BTW, the first article is the first part that will be used in service, the first deliverable part). These subelement test / building block test are fun, things break - hopefully likeyou think they would, but very likely not..

• Make a plan - really hurt your head over this, what are you trying to prove before adding more complexity, what do you need to show, how quickly can you build and test it. What is sucess for a test look like. What are the sequntial steps needed to be sucessfull
• Test the sub element, test it fast, test it to failure,
  • fails 'too low' understand is it a design, fabriction or test problem, correct, rebuild / re test,
  • fails 'too high' - can i make it lighter, simpler or is too high ok - move on
  • fails as predicted - go on to the next test
• Test the sub elements, on the bench and in the actual environment,
  • fly the 'dumb rocket' to see if you can predect the altitude in it - before trying to do that with the complicated rocket
  • fly the 'slightly less dumb rocket' to see if you can make a dual deploy work as you expected - before trying to do that with the complicated rocket.
  • Etc.

 

[OzHybrid]

We all get tarred with the same brush when stupid ideas go wrong. Even as part of a completely different organisation.

 

[BABAR]

The Space Shuttle had plenty of non structural foam on it. The point is to build the rocket and pass the class, and learn from the experience.

Good point.

To the original poster, “what subject is this course?” What educational level is this (specific grade level or college level.)

In any case, if you are unable to convince the teacher otherwise, sounds like the most reasonable course is to initially skip the foam and design a wide diameter cardboard rock that fulfills the FLIGHT requirements.

Since you should always begin with the end in mind (no matter how stupid the end is) early in design phase push for a excess lift capacity [so you can add (likely useless) foam weight and still achieve flight requirements].

Also lean toward a wide diameter rocket with a large internal volume so you can fit the required motor, chute, chute protection, and any needed electronics if dual deploy, and the space to add a token amount of foam.

I am thinking likely a “tube within a tube”, with the foam placed between the tubes.

I am reminded of the corollary to the saying,

“Anything worth doing is worth doing right.”

The corollary is

“Anything NOT worth doing BUT due to bureaucratic or other requirements you HAVE to do anyway, put minimum (token) resources into filling the square and move on.”

The one thing you canNOT compromise on is safety, so plan on a rocket that can fly and RECOVER safely both without the foam AND with the added mass and CG changes of flying WITH the foam.

In this case, rather than let it be a total waste, set your own goals for the rocket and build something fun or otherwise interesting to you, and also leave a few cavities you can put sufficient foam in to make teacher happy.

 

[BABAR]

Does your teacher own stock in PoleCrete?

 

[jqavins]

I've read all the through the first thread, and I only got about half way through this one before deciding it was too repetitive to plow through before responding; if I've missed anything really important, please forgive me and direct me to it.

There are two issues here: the one most replies have been to, that you're going down a foolish road, is totally true; the one that only one reply has really addressed, that your teacher is pushing you down a foolish road. Maybe the real lesson to be learned here is when to push back against authority and tell your teacher "No, this is stupid."

Out of the box does not always have to mean that there is no priority on functionality.

Yeah, it kinda does. Every requirement is a constraint on what you can do. If the requirement is to send a scratch built rocket that you've design yourself up high enough to get the 'chute out and recover safely, then you've got a huge number of parameters that you can vary over huge ranges. That's called having a very large "design space". When the requirement is to reach a mile up, that shrinks the design space. When the requirement is a lift a one pound payload, that shrinks the design space. Having to do both, the design space has shrunk to one that's not terrible large anymore. A requirement to land within 1000 feet of the launch pad shrinks it a little more. Those are all reasonable requirements, and the design space is still of reasonable size, just not very large.

"The design must be 'out of the box'" is another requirement; it shrinks the design space further. Worse, it takes away a whole lot of proven, tried and true area of the space. The box is what it is because a century of experience has taught us that designs within it work well, so a requirement to go outside it shrinks the design space a lot. When people here have stated that judges who are experienced engineers will appreciate a good solid design (more than a cool, out of the box design) it's because such a design demonstrates that you understand this, while an out of the box design demonstrates that you either don't understand it or don't care. Or that you've been pushed into a corner because you teacher either doesn't understand or doesn't care.

But wait, there's still more. Design is only the start of things. Accomplishing the basic goal (a mile high with a pound of payload landing within 1000 ft) takes three skill sets: design, construction, and flying. A good design is worthless if it's not built well. And a perfect rocket will still fail if a dozen more things are not done right on launch day (as me how I know ). To build the airframe out of expanding polyurethane foam means you'll have to spend a lot of time learning techniques that are worthless in "practical" rocket building, will inevitably lead to multiple failed attempts along the way, and will rob you of time for test flights to develop flying skill. Your teacher must have been stoned when s/he came up with that one.

I see your point and appreciate the feedback, my mentor isn’t the normal science teacher and often gives us challenges that would be considered “too hard”. i’m not very knowledgeable about rockets yet, to your point… but if given the challenge of making a foam rocket go 1 mile high as opposed to a normal rocket, why not choose to learn as much as possible? I get that it’s not the conventional way of starting off but i never claimed to be doing so. Everything being done is within safety standards and while supervised, so I guess I don’t see the problem with doing harder work? Especially if I’m learning what to do in the process of. Also, ejection charges are also not the only way to get your chutes out, are they?

None of this to be rude or disrespectful, I just feel as though there also has to be overachievers. It seems like a group of well rounded teenagers could build a kit rocket and succeed, so why not have something especially impressive for some teenagers to do?

To "learn as much as possibly" is a great goal, and shows a good attitude. The issue here is that we're afraid that what you'll learn is that you've bitten off more than you can chew, or had more than you can chew stuffed into your mouth. The accomplishments of overachievers high achievers are not done out of the blue. High school kids achieving beyond their years are able to do it usually because they started when they were younger and worked their way up.

My veteran rocket teacher...

Veteran of what?!?

The program is giving you a challenge, and your teacher is making MUCH harder by adding on arbitrary limitations. It's like if the program required you to complete a one mile run while wearing a 20 lb backpack. OK, challenging. Then your teacher comes in and says "I want you to do it with only one shoe." You think about that and, with youthful enthusiasm, you say "Sure, we can do that." Then, after you've thought a while about the one shoe thing, Teach says "I also want you to do it with one arm tied behind your back." It's really gone from challenging to ridiculous.

 

[NTP2]

I've read all the through the first thread, and I only got about half way through this one before deciding it was too repetitive to plow through before responding; if I've missed anything really important, please forgive me and direct me to it.

There are two issues here: the one most replies have been to, that you're going down a foolish road, is totally true; the one that only one reply has really addressed, that your teacher is pushing you down a foolish road. Maybe the real lesson to be learned here is when to push back against authority and tell your teacher "No, this is stupid."


Yeah, it kinda does. Every requirement is a constraint on what you can do. If the requirement is to send a scratch built rocket that you've design yourself up high enough to get the 'chute out and recover safely, then you've got a huge number of parameters that you can vary over huge ranges. That's called having a very large "design space". When the requirement is to reach a mile up, that shrinks the design space. When the requirement is a lift a one pound payload, that shrinks the design space. Having to do both, the design space has shrunk to one that's not terrible large anymore. A requirement to land within 1000 feet of the launch pad shrinks it a little more. Those are all reasonable requirements, and the design space is still of reasonable size, just not very large.

"The design must be 'out of the box'" is another requirement; it shrinks the design space further. Worse, it takes away a whole lot of proven, tried and true area of the space. The box is what it is because a century of experience has taught us that designs within it work well, so a requirement to go outside it shrinks the design space a lot. When people here have stated that judges who are experienced engineers will appreciate a good solid design (more than a cool, out of the box design) it's because such a design demonstrates that you understand this, while an out of the box design demonstrates that you either don't understand it or don't care. Or that you've been pushed into a corner because you teacher either doesn't understand or doesn't care.

But wait, there's still more. Design is only the start of things. Accomplishing the basic goal (a mile high with a pound of payload landing within 1000 ft) takes three skill sets: design, construction, and flying. A good design is worthless if it's not built well. And a perfect rocket will still fail if a dozen more things are not done right on launch day (as me how I know ). To build the airframe out of expanding polyurethane foam means you'll have to spend a lot of time learning techniques that are worthless in "practical" rocket building, will inevitably lead to multiple failed attempts along the way, and will rob you of time for test flights to develop flying skill. Your teacher must have been stoned when s/he came up with that one.


To "learn as much as possibly" is a great goal, and shows a good attitude. The issue here is that we're afraid that what you'll learn is that you've bitten off more than you can chew, or had more than you can chew stuffed into your mouth. The accomplishments of overachievers high achievers are not done out of the blue. High school kids achieving beyond their years are able to do it usually because they started when they were younger and worked their way up.


Veteran of what?!?

The program is giving you a challenge, and your teacher is making MUCH harder by adding on arbitrary limitations. It's like if the program required you to complete a one mile run while wearing a 20 lb backpack. OK, challenging. Then your teacher comes in and says "I want you to do it with only one shoe." You think about that and, with youthful enthusiasm, you say "Sure, we can do that." Then, after you've thought a while about the one shoe thing, Teach says "I also want you to do it with one arm tied behind your back." It's really gone from challenging to ridiculous.

I can’t agree more.

 

[Rschub]

Now I want to try this.

 

[jqavins]

But the captions are wrong. The line is "Give my creation LIFE!"

 

[James Keller]

As a recent alumni of SystemsGo I would STRONGLY recommended against this polecrete stuff. I participate in CDR's for systems go all the time and know my way around the program. I also know it's truly very difficult to get the banners(like trophy for how close you get to the goal ie 5280ft etc). For those unaware you must use Hybrid(hypertek) motors for the "compotion." So getting to a mile can be quite difficult especially if you haven't had any prior experience with HPR. If I had to give you any advice, made a timeline STICK TO IT. The biggest problem groups often run into is mismanaging time. I am myself guilty of this. I was up until 2am at school(my teacher was the best) preparing the rocket for the launch the next day. While I disagree with the sentiment of make something stupid simple for you're first attempt, as I often like to overcomplicate/overdesign things, just know that it often doesn't work out in your favor. See my recent L1 attempt as an example. If you really want to make a good impression show up with a well designed rocket that is built really well and hits a mile on the nose, and get the banner! If you have any questions about SystemsGO or your rocket feel free to PM me. And if you're flying in Fredericksburg I will likely see you!
Good luck
-James

 

[jqavins]

Holy cow! That's two more requirements that the @rocket1student didn't tell us about. First is the hybrid motor. Second, I assumed that a mile altitude meant at least a mile, not a mile exactly.

The bull's eye altitude narrows that design space a little more, and the hybrid motor probably a bunch more, though I don't really know, as I have no experience with them. At the least it means electronic deployment. The hybrid motor certainly ups the flying skill needed on launch day by a bunch. This just went from challenging to really hard, and that's without the dumb-ass Polecrete complication.

(I sure hope the Hypertek stuff never leaks. Inflammable polyurethane plus nitrous oxide plus an ejection charge could lead to a spectacular failure.)

 

[Antares JS]

My veteran rocket teacher gave us the restriction of not using an engine tube strictly based off of the foam rocket idea. Although not easy, making the spot in a piece of foam flush with a motor doesnt seem impossible. But if it was easy, anybody could do it.

Not impossible to make it so the motor fits, but how does that stuff hold up against heat? Because your motor case is going to get hot as the motor fires. Even if it can take the heat, the lack of shear strength makes me question whether that foam is really capable of holding a motor in place during flight without disintegrating. I'm in agreement that this whole foam thing is a really, really bad idea.

 

[Rschub]

Many engineers are given impossible tasks to accomplish, such as a flying car. If the money people can't be argued with, just take the money, have fun with it and if you are lucky, you will find out you were wrong. If you were right, you still got paid. The trick is knowing exactly when to bail so you can plausibly say [to your next employer] that the technical challenges could be overcome, but the money just ran out.

 

[kramer714]

Original Poster rocket1student, help me out here please;

1) post the actual requirements / rules objectives you received from your teacher. I am assuming these are in a document that the teacher has given you. Please send/post that. What I am looking for is a SINGLE document with ALL of the requirements in it.
2) Can you have your teacher / mentor contact me, I would be interested in talking to them. You can PM me to get my contact info. I would like to talk to them about the objectives.
3) What is your plan to become level 1 (or jr level 1) certified. What si the plan for the entire team to be certified?

 

[tfish]

@kramer714
Here's Systems GO website.

https://www.systemsgo.org/

Tony