trying to understand how the rules work:)

[wsume99]

The school needs some guidance on what should be expected as a development time for a program like this. I think this is only in it's 2nd year. These students are only attempting to do what the school is requiring of them. Without having proper guidance available.

Can someone accumulate the knowledge and skills necessary to fly at L2 in only 2 flights? I'd say no (unless they have a panel of experts to guide and educate them along every step). It seems as though many (not all) university projects assume it is yet provide minimal guidance. After reading these posts I keep wondering, who is advising these students???

Professionally I am accustomed to a very incremental, build-up approach to manage risk when it comes to flight test. That is the standard in aerospace. What I see some students doing is very far from that. They are in for a rude awakening when they enter the professional workforce if they are being taught that cramming a dozen different major accomplishments into a single flight is a sound approach.

 

[krislhull]

My "biggest gripe" is with this is the university itself. Based on what is being told, and asked here on the forums; I feel the capstone committee is putting an unrealistic time frame/ expectations on this program. Then instead of relaxing expectations, they made it more complex by requiring a active diagnostic payload of some type on the 10,000ft flight.

The school needs some guidance on what should be expected as a development time for a program like this. I think this is only in it's 2nd year. These students are only attempting to do what the school is requiring of them. Without having proper guidance available.

I have had the same thoughts. We don’t even know for a fact that the professor who is leading this “capstone committee” has any experience with HPR. It has been alluded to, but never confirmed when others have asked. If I were the professor in this case, I would have approached the local club (sounds like it’s UROC in this case), and asked for their advice, and checked to see if anyone would be willing to be a team mentor. I wholly agree that this project has very unrealistic goals given the timeframe, and is encouraging speeding through things, which the OP openly admitted to in a previous post.

Interesting in that there are 119 posts but don't see a sim file attached yet. Maybe I missed it.

If I'm understanding correctly, there were several of the same rockets but this one zippered? I would weigh each rocket and figure out CG then input into OR for the sustainer to determine optimal delay.

Nope. You haven’t missed anything. No sim file has been shown yet.

I will admit, when I was first getting into HPR when I was 19, I had a very similar attitude, and thought I had enough book smarts from researching things to be successful in HPR. My first L1 attempt in 2002 failed when my shock cord broke, and both sections drifted into a swamp and couldn’t be recovered. My second L1 attempt in early 2003 was a success. Then, my first L2 attempt a few months later was a miserable failure. I didn’t head the advice of the more experienced fliers in the club, and thought I knew what I was doing. I was dead wrong.

Can someone accumulate the knowledge and skills necessary to fly at L2 in only 2 flights? I'd say no (unless they have a panel of experts to guide and educate them along every step). It seems as though many (not all) university projects assume it is yet provide minimal guidance. After reading these posts I keep wondering, who is advising these students???

Professionally I am accustomed to a very incremental, build-up approach to manage risk when it comes to flight test. That is the standard in aerospace. What I see some students doing is very far from that. They are in for a rude awakening when they enter the professional workforce if they are being taught that cramming a dozen different major accomplishments into a single flight is a sound approach.

There is a somewhat high profile individual, whom I’m not going to name, and whom I do not think is a member here, who bragged openly about being a L2, and only making two HPR flights. I think this individual has made some more flights now, but I am not too sure. I definitely would not advocate that. As I tried the same thing as mentioned earlier, and learned a valuable lesson.

 

[smstachwick]

I know for a fact that I am not ready for HPR. While I can get a rocket in the air with a reasonable chance of success, I’m still working on developing efficient and precise building, finishing, and prep techniques so that I end up with exactly what I want. I’m also learning that evergreen lesson of being patient, going slow, and savoring a project or launch day instead of blasting through it.

You can check out the 2022 Newton Tally thread to see how many flights I’ve made just this year. It can be a slow process.

 

[kramer714]

Hmm, best way to answer this,

I do think that under a capstone program you could become level 2 but it would be a program. Let me hit this two ways,

1) This is an engineering program, one thing recent college grads that I have hired are lacking is understanding technology development. I had my high school SLI team put together a TRL development plan for their SLI payload. I'm not sure the kids appreciate what a structured milestone approach to development is and how it is needed in engineering. To me, if this is a capstone program, treat it just like an engineering development program with TRL milestones, plus a PDR and CDR. In a two semester program assuming there are local launches that can work.

2) When I went to college (University of Illinois - Go Illini!) the university offered pilot training. It was two semester program that had classroom training and flying. Classroom was twice a week for 1.5 hours, the flying was at a local airport. Unlike most people that get their pilots license by hiring an instructor to teach them to fly and then taking classes to pass the written test, this was a true classroom program just like other engineering classes I had in school. We got much more into the details about flying, theory and practice. It truly was a college class, final exam was the written and flight test for your pilots license. 8 months start to finish.

So, with a structured program - like any other engineering class, and true development milestones, I think you could go from basic experience to high power certification.

Mike K

 

[Banzai88]

....... - this is basic knowledge that is necessary to consistently fly rockets successfully and it can’t be easily learned over the course of two flights in two weeks resulting in two certifications.

And yet the system allows it....with a single rocket!

 

[afadeev]

the damage was minor and im not sure how it failed cert. The rocket can fly again easily. Here is an image of the damage.

yeah, 4 of the 5 passed, just this one didnt. Its been a learning curve for sure. not sure why open rocket states the 14 second delay is good and we were recommended it as well. so im not sure what happened with this rocket

There is more to successful parachute deployment than just setting the motor delay!

FACTS!!! i was just asking my team this. his rocket that zippered was naked and not painted. i think it had more drag and more mass somewhere hence lower coasting velocity etc etc

There is more to successful parachute deployment than just a paint job!

yeah, 4 of the 5 passed, just this one didnt. Its been a learning curve for sure. not sure why open rocket states the 14 second delay is good and we were recommended it as well. so im not sure what happened with this rocket

Where all 5 rockets identical, and built identically by the same person?
If not, the data points are not relevant.

That is the LOC IV and we all used hte exact kit and motors
This rocket just happened to expiernce some stress that was unforeseen. Not a failure at all. May not have passed, which he found frustrating since he was able to recover it safely and we were told from others in various meetings that if it is recovered safely, then you pass. He is kind of upset at those who told us wrong.

This may have been unFORSEEN, but the outcome was very much FORESEABLE.
This was an engineering failure by the rocket owner. Likely the whole team, since you are all surprised and indignant.

Stop making excuses.
Learn from your mistakes.
Do better the next time!


a

 

[thequick]

Just as a clarification- if that had been fixed onsite, it could have been flown again same day as a 2nd L1 cert attempt. Keep that in mind for L2.

I did this

 

[Tim51]

My "biggest gripe" is with this is the university itself. Based on what is being told, and asked here on the forums; I feel the capstone committee is putting an unrealistic time frame/ expectations on this program. Then instead of relaxing expectations, they made it more complex by requiring a active diagnostic payload of some type on the 10,000ft flight.

The school needs some guidance on what should be expected as a development time for a program like this. I think this is only in it's 2nd year. These students are only attempting to do what the school is requiring of them. Without having proper guidance available.

The problem you describe - and similar, related ones - is being replicated in student engineering challenges in a number of countries.

 

[smstachwick]

And yet the system allows it....with a single rocket!

The system is not there to ensure that every flight is successful. It’s there to ensure that the most severe risks to life, limb, and property are sufficiently mitigated, even in a less likely event of a failure, to placate the public and allow our hobby to continue.

It only takes one accident, but thankfully the accidents we have seen are rare, usually the results of deviation from prescribed and adopted procedure.

While we’ve done much speculation and a smaller amount of finger pointing towards the team, maybe we ought to look at the responsibility of range personnel as well.

Just to posit a scenario: If I were volunteering to, say, manage pads at a HPR launch and I saw a college team bringing up a bunch of LOC IVs, and flights 1, 2, and 3 all arced over enough for the LCO to verbally express concern or if I happened get antsy during my own observations, I might ask that we check with the owners of rockets 4 and 5 and see what’s up with those. It can’t hurt to double-check the flight cards, see what the delays were, and ask why they’re so long.

Experienced rocketeers can make the mistake of assuming that attendees know what they’re doing, that a warning of an incoming rocket over a PA system is enough to prevent injuries, etc. and allow newbies to go without sufficient scrutiny. The best way to maintain safety on the range is to ensure all flights are safe, to the best of practicality. I know I wouldn’t mind a longer line at a HPR launch’s LCO station or roving RSOs if I knew that everybody was at least being briefly questioned about things like their level of experience, if and how they’re deviating from a proven design, their rocket’s stability margin(s) and how it was determined, their logic behind their motor and delay selection, intended flight profile, etc.

Now, I’m not implying that the signs were immediately obvious or that range personnel on this flight were negligent, but all the same, I can’t help but wonder why this wasn’t caught earlier. It was catchable. Perhaps the OP @Lt72884 can shed some light on where the flight occurred, which checks were made, the exact sequence of events leading up the the flight, etc. Maybe he knows something we don’t.

 

[Neutronium95]

The problem you describe - and similar, related ones - is being replicated in student engineering challenges in a number of countries.

I think that the situation that the OP is in is pretty different from a usual IREC team. A normal team will have some experienced members who can mentor and guide the newcomers through their first steps, until they know enough to contribute to the design of the contest rocket. The OP doesn't have that support structure. It sounds like a group of five students were told to build an IREC type rocket, and they have no experience and no in person mentor, so they came to TRF for advice.

 

[Lt72884]

View attachment 542167 View attachment 542185

There is more to successful parachute deployment than just setting the motor delay!



There is more to successful parachute deployment than just a paint job!



Where all 5 rockets identical, and built identically by the same person?
If not, the data points are not relevant.



This may have been unFORSEEN, but the outcome was very much FORESEABLE.
This was an engineering failure by the rocket owner. Likely the whole team, since you are all surprised and indignant.

Stop making excuses.
Learn from your mistakes.
Do better the next time!


a

Correct, the damage was done due to a few factors like i have mentioned in previous posts before yours. IE, wrong elevation by 6400 feet in OR which caused a wrong delay time, drag on the rocket since he did not sand the fins or add airfoil, or paint, which caused him to hit apogee faster so the rocket was falling faster during deployment, also it had an issue with ejection charge of about 1 second later than expected.

all rockets were identical from the same company and all had same motors of H550-14
out come was not foreseeable, or we would have not had this issue. We were recommended the delay time from multiple people.

4 of the 5 passed which was good. probably luck. were fine with that.

not making excuses. We were never informed of the rule that in order to pass it would need to be able to fly again immediately. hence why i asked on this forum and i received the answer in post 45..i think that's the post number.

the rocket was fixed with in 2 hours and he is ready to fly it again

Thanks

 

[Lt72884]

I think that the situation that the OP is in is pretty different from a usual IREC team. A normal team will have some experienced members who can mentor and guide the newcomers through their first steps, until they know enough to contribute to the design of the contest rocket. The OP doesn't have that support structure. It sounds like a group of five students were told to build an IREC type rocket, and they have no experience and no in person mentor, so they came to TRF for advice.

EXACTLY THIS!!!!!! I have SOME expierence with rockets. I have made my own fuel and built a few rockets but never flown them to certify. They used D and E engines and thats it. So certification is new to all of us.

We were even told from 2 other lvl 1's that we couldnt use kits as our lvl 1 cert flight and that it had to be all built from scratch. Luckily thats not true. We have no mentors and its been damn hard to find some.

I have had 3 or 4 PM me who are lvl 3's offering their help the last week which has been AMAZING!!!! these forums have been the mentors which has been tough to do all of this digitally

For the amount of resources we DONT have, i think we have done EXCELLENT!!! Kudos to team mates

 

[Tractionengines]

[ Edit I posted this prior to @Lt72884 last two posts, but due to delay from my phone connection, it didn't get thru right away. It is GREAT to see them still here. ]

Sitting here waiting for the New York Mets / Cleveland Guardians game reading thru this thread again. I think we may have been a little harsh on this individual/team. Yes, I still feel some if the questions asked are of someone not ready for HPR, or getting L1 one week, and going for L2 a week later. BUT THEY ARE HERE ASKING QUESTIONS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WIDE RANGE OF ANSWERS THAT EACH QUESTION BRINGS. "THAT" is the best thing that can continue. If we overwhelm them with talking down about what they are trying to do, and they quit seeking advice, it will not be good for anyone.

They are still in a university class that has set goals they must attempt to reach, in order to graduate. Due to that there is a timeline, and expectations of progress that are set by the academic environment. While I would like to see them advance slowly, and build multiple rockets at each level, and practice dual deploy, etc, etc, etc. they can not do that. To that end I sent a private message offering any support I can from 1000 miles away, wishing them the best, and asking them to be open minded to the varied responses that they get in a "public forum".

 

[Lt72884]

Sitting here waiting for the New York Mets / Cleveland Guardians game reading thru this thread again. I think we may have been a little harsh on this individual/team. Yes, I still feel some if the questions asked are of someone not ready for HPR, or getting L1 one week, and going for L2 a week later. BUT THEY ARE HERE ASKING QUESTIONS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WIDE RANGE OF ANSWERS THAT EACH QUESTION BRINGS. "THAT" is the best thing that can continue. If we overwhelm them with talking down about what they are trying to do, and they quit seeking advice, it will not be good for anyone.

They are still in a university class that has set goals they must attempt to reach, in order to graduate. Due to that there is a timeline, and expectations of progress that are set by the academic environment. While I would like to see them advance slowly, and build multiple rockets at each level, and practice dual deploy, etc, etc, etc. they can not do that. To that end I sent a private message offering any support I can from 1000 miles away, wishing them the best, and asking them to be open minded to the varied responses that they get in a "public forum".

lol, yeah this has been a tough class, not the material, but the expectations of it all. I think march is our laucnh date, not may, so that came as a shock... I had a private meeting with the instructor and told him that i have kind of put the final rocket on hold and im actually logging all the information, writing tutorials, and collecting books for next years team so they can hit the goal. I also told my professor that he needs to at least be lvl 2 or 3 if they really want us to do this, or at least hire a lvl 3 mentor for the school, and one who knows what he/she is doing. Being told twice that we couldn't use kits for lvl 1 was nerve racking, especially after my team had built them, and then it turns out that we can use kits.... We have no idea who to trust at the moment. this is why i am asking on the TRF, at least i get some answers that make sense hahaha

 

[Steve Shannon]

lol, yeah this has been a tough class, not the material, but the expectations of it all. I think march is our laucnh date, not may, so that came as a shock... I had a private meeting with the instructor and told him that i have kind of put the final rocket on hold and im actually logging all the information, writing tutorials, and collecting books for next years team so they can hit the goal. I also told my professor that he needs to at least be lvl 2 or 3 if they really want us to do this, or at least hire a lvl 3 mentor for the school, and one who knows what he/she is doing. Being told twice that we couldn't use kits for lvl 1 was nerve racking, especially after my team had built them, and then it turns out that we can use kits.... We have no idea who to trust at the moment. this is why i am asking on the TRF, at least i get some answers that make sense hahaha

You’re Tripoli members. Post questions on the Tripoli forums. You’ll get official answers that you can rely on.

 

[smstachwick]

IE, wrong elevation by 6400 feet in OR which caused a wrong delay time,

Strictly speaking, that’s catchable through exploring OpenRocket a bit.

drag on the rocket since he did not sand the fins or add airfoil, or paint,

That’s also catchable.

all rockets were identical from the same company

Unless you get a preassembled Estes-size rocket, no two rockets will ever be identical.

…We were recommended the delay time from multiple people.

How qualified were they? Had they flown rockets like this at your site before? And are you absolutely certain that they recommended the delay time specifically? Recommending the H550ST is not the same as recommending the H550ST with a 14-second delay specifically (which is designated by the manufacturer as the H550ST-14A, with A for “adjustable.” You can adjust the delay downward with a specially-calibrated drill tool to get the time you want.)

4 of the 5 passed which was good. probably luck.

Probably. And luck is not enough to maintain range safety. It takes critical thinking and compliance with best practices, which in turn usually requires knowing them.

were fine with that.

I do truly hope that you’re not fine with that going forward. I agree with a previous poster (lots coming in as I’m typing this) that we’ve perhaps been a bit harsh on you and your team. But please keep in mind the need for qualified, knowledgeable people on your team. Whether that knowledge comes from yourself flying smaller rockets first or it comes from another party, it’s the only way we keep this hobby safe.

If you’re consistently getting bad information from the L1s and L2s you work with, consider replacing them or adjusting the scope of your project goals. Or be prepared to fail in them and need to try again.

not making excuses. We were never informed of the rule that in order to pass it would need to be able to fly again immediately.

That doesn’t sound like something a competent, qualified mentor or witness would leave out. Have they ever done a certification flight before?

Also keep in mind that members are given the right to refuse to work with an applicant or set their own conditions to do so. I can see why one would demand scratch-building, as it means that you should fully understand the rocket and not just build it, but that’s not a Tripoli or NAR requirement. They do require, however, that the applicant do the vast majority of the work in assembling the rocket and either prepare it independently or exercise strong leadership over the prep team (in the case of very large L3 projects that require a lot of muscle to lug around and set up).

hence why i asked on this forum and i received the answer in post 45..i think that's the post number.

the rocket was fixed with in 2 hours and he is ready to fly it again

Thanks

I did say that luck is not enough to maintain range safety, but sometimes things do go wrong that are impractically difficult to forsee. With that in mind, I do wish you luck on the next flight and I hope it’s safe.

Good luck with your professor as well. Maybe more reasonable course cirriculum will bring future students greater success and safety.

 

[Lt72884]

You’re Tripoli members. Post questions on the Tripoli forums. You’ll get official answers that you can rely on.

thank you for this. When you say Tripoli forums, are you meaning a sub group on the TRF or the actual tripoli page and forums on that page? i just want to make sure

 

[tsmith1315]

We were never informed of the rule that in order to pass it would need to be able to fly again immediately

Yes, actually you were informed.

It's spelled out right there on Tripoli's Level 1 Certification Procedure page. Anyone requesting certification should know this process in full, it's that simple. If you didn't understand, it's because you didn't look at the information or didn't pay attention.

"Excessive damage shall be considered damage to the point that if the flyer were handed another motor, the rocket could not be put on the pad and flown again safely."

Here's the page, it's only a few lines:
https://www.tripoli.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=795696&module_id=468544

 

[Lt72884]

Strictly speaking, that’s catchable through exploring OpenRocket a bit.



That’s also catchable.



Unless you get a preassembled Estes-size rocket, no two rockets will ever be identical.



How qualified were they? Had they flown rockets like this at your site before? And are you absolutely certain that they recommended the delay time specifically? Recommending the H550ST is not the same as recommending the H550ST with a 14-second delay specifically (which is designated by the manufacturer as the H550ST-14A, with A for “adjustable.” You can adjust the delay downward with a specially-calibrated drill tool to get the time you want.)



Probably. And luck is not enough to maintain range safety. It takes critical thinking and compliance with best practices, which in turn usually requires knowing them.



I do truly hope that you’re not fine with that going forward. I agree with a previous poster (lots coming in as I’m typing this) that we’ve perhaps been a bit harsh on you and your team. But please keep in mind the need for qualified, knowledgeable people on your team. Whether that knowledge comes from yourself flying smaller rockets first or it comes from another party, it’s the only way we keep this hobby safe.

If you’re consistently getting bad information from the L1s and L2s you work with, consider replacing them or adjusting the scope of your project goals. Or be prepared to fail in them and need to try again.



That doesn’t sound like something a competent, qualified mentor or witness would leave out. Have they ever done a certification flight before?

Also keep in mind that members are given the right to refuse to work with an applicant or set their own conditions to do so. I can see why one would demand scratch-building, as it means that you should fully understand the rocket and not just build it, but that’s not a Tripoli or NAR requirement. They do require, however, that the applicant do the vast majority of the work in assembling the rocket and either prepare it independently or exercise strong leadership over the prep team (in the case of very large L3 projects that require a lot of muscle to lug around and set up).



I did say that luck is not enough to maintain range safety, but sometimes things do go wrong that are impractically difficult to forsee. With that in mind, I do wish you luck on the next flight and I hope it’s safe.

Good luck with your professor as well. Maybe more reasonable course cirriculum will bring future students greater success and safety.

"were fine with that" as in were glad it passed and now we can focus on the future launches armed with more information due to this thread and the 500 posts answering my questions.

We understand its a dangerous sport and heavily monitored, and one bad issue can ruin it for others.

As for the motor delay, they were other lvl 2's, could be lvl 1's, that told us to stick with the 14 second delay so we trusted them because we had no one else to rely on. But the cool part is, they now know to adjust it as well haha so everybody wins.

Thanks for all your help and answers, its been awesome to write it all done. this is all part of the papers im giving my professor for next years team. Im not risking my sanity and health to try and hit a lvl 2 or 3 rocket with a 10,000 foot goal, custom controls for stability and a deployable electronics thing by march.. it just cant be done in the time frame. What they really need is a 10 man team where one focuses on controls and deployable, while others focus on the rocket, and we all take turns working on each team to learn

 

[Lt72884]

c

Yes, actually you were informed.

It's spelled out right there on Tripoli's Level 1 Certification Procedure page. Anyone requesting certification should know this process in full, it's that simple. If you didn't understand, it's because you didn't look at the information or didn't pay attention.

"Excessive damage shall be considered damage to the point that if the flyer were handed another motor, the rocket could not be put on the pad and flown again safely."

Here's the page, it's only a few lines:
https://www.tripoli.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=795696&module_id=468544

correct, you posted this a few pages back and i thanked you for it I think you were post number 45. I have not flown my rocket yet. im next week and now that i see how it works, i think i will pass.

 

[Worsaer]

thank you for this. When you say Tripoli forums, are you meaning a sub group on the TRF or the actual tripoli page and forums on that page? i just want to make sure

Log on to your account on Tripoli.org, and take advantage of the Tripoli member forums. There's a bunch of experienced flyers there that would be happy to assist.

 

[rharshberger]

Log on to your account on Tripoli.org, and take advantage of the Tripoli member forums. There's a bunch of experienced flyers there that would be happy to assist.

And there are MORE (quantity) experienced flyers here on TRF, the OP has already been given a full run down of their errors, now its up to them to get experience and start asking the right questions.

 

[Lt72884]

Log on to your account on Tripoli.org, and take advantage of the Tripoli member forums. There's a bunch of experienced flyers there that would be happy to assist.

ok, i registered last week and they have not approved it yet. So i need to contact them anyway. I selected the student option and have not received any information from them for payment.

 

[smstachwick]

"were fine with that" as in were glad it passed and now we can focus on the future launches armed with more information due to this thread and the 500 posts answering my questions.

We understand its a dangerous sport and heavily monitored, and one bad issue can ruin it for others.

As for the motor delay, they were other lvl 2's, could be lvl 1's, that told us to stick with the 14 second delay so we trusted them because we had no one else to rely on. But the cool part is, they now know to adjust it as well haha so everybody wins.

Thanks for all your help and answers, its been awesome to write it all done. this is all part of the papers im giving my professor for next years team. Im not risking my sanity and health to try and hit a lvl 2 or 3 rocket with a 10,000 foot goal, custom controls for stability and a deployable electronics thing by march.. it just cant be done in the time frame. What they really need is a 10 man team where one focuses on controls and deployable, while others focus on the rocket, and we all take turns working on each team to learn

Good to know.

While there is no approach that fits everyone, hopefully our guidance has been more helpful than frustrating on getting you on a path that works for you. Some lessons are hard, this one seemed pretty hard from my vantage point.

I’ll probably check back here every now and then to see if anybody needs a reminder to be gentle. I’m not currently HPR certified but I’d be happy to be of any assistance that I can be. My DMs are open and you’ll find my contributions scattered around the forum.

 

[FredA]

And there are MORE (quantity) experienced flyers here on TRF, the OP has already been given a full run down of their errors, now its up to them to get experience and start asking the right questions.

Yea - I'm not sure why Steve is thinking things are better at the TRA forum.
I find the volume much lower but with similar signal to noise.

 

[rharshberger]

Yea - I'm not sure why Steve is thinking things are better at the TRA forum.
I find the volume much lower but with similar signal to noise.

Exactly Fred, the TRA forum does have some very experienced flyers especially technically, but they aren't necessarily any better than the rest of us, and some are just as full of BS as some of the ones on TRF.

 

[Alan15578]

Thanks for all your help and answers, its been awesome to write it all done. this is all part of the papers im giving my professor for next years team. Im not risking my sanity and health to try and hit a lvl 2 or 3 rocket with a 10,000 foot goal, custom controls for stability and a deployable electronics thing by march.. it just cant be done in the time frame. What they really need is a 10 man team where one focuses on controls and deployable, while others focus on the rocket, and we all take turns working on each team to learn

I do not think you ever mentioned the size of your team, or the number of teams.
You may not have suitable weather on your launch day in April and March, so be sure to make allowances for that.
I graduated a long time ago from a state university with a fully accredited Aerospace Engineering Department. Your Utah Valley University is large enough, but seems more pertinent to training A&P mechanics and other aviation service professionals. I can't really relate my graduation requirements to your capstone requirement. Much of the UVU website is non functional. Nevertheless, UVU has set the requirements and it your job to satisfy them. The time frame may be challenging to you, but it is not unreasonable.

I remember chatting on the job with our team designer one day. He told me: Never tell the manager that you can't design a missile in a day (or a week). Tell him if he wants a one day design, you will give him a one day design. More generally, in competitive time limited engineering, a good enough answer in an hour or so may be more valuable than a properly analyzed answer days later.

 

[Lt72884]

Good to know.

While there is no approach that fits everyone, hopefully our guidance has been more helpful than frustrating on getting you on a path that works for you. Some lessons are hard, this one seemed pretty hard from my vantage point.

I’ll probably check back here every now and then to see if anybody needs a reminder to be gentle. I’m not currently HPR certified but I’d be happy to be of any assistance that I can be. My DMs are open and you’ll find my contributions scattered around the forum.

for sure more than helpful. I have a ton of notes and my professor is overwhelmed by the amount of information that HPR really is.
Yeah, this lesson was strange one at that. from trying to figure out how we got lucky, to possible reasons the rocket zippered, to understanding rules and regulations and then being guided in many different directions from local sources. Now that i understand how lvl 1 SHOULD work. I think my next launches will be better.

 

[Tim51]

I think that the situation that the OP is in is pretty different from a usual IREC team. A normal team will have some experienced members who can mentor and guide the newcomers through their first steps, until they know enough to contribute to the design of the contest rocket. The OP doesn't have that support structure. It sounds like a group of five students were told to build an IREC type rocket, and they have no experience and no in person mentor, so they came to TRF for advice.

Sure. But the OP's situation is similar to other situations I have come across.

 

[Voyager1]

This discussion highlights a significant issue that our club has witnessed over the last few years, and one that could be discussed more fully in a seperate thread.

Over the last few years the club has assisted a number of university teams wishing to participate in the various international competitions. While we have enthusiastically provided advice and facilitated low, mid and high power launch opportunities for these teams, there is a common agenda driving these teams that in many cases reduces the process to a box-ticking exercise to achieve certification in the shortest possible time.

We get that they have a limited time frame for their participation in these events, but this should not be used to compromise safety and the operational integrity of the clubs that provide this support. It is apparent to us that, at least over this side, the academic supervisors of these teams have little or no experience in rocketry, let alone in high power rocketry. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, this is an extracurricular activity.

There are so many requests for certification from these teams now that have a significant impact on club operations. The limited number of HPR launch opportunities, due to COVID and adverse weather conditions over the last couple of years, have been a real challenge, particularly for the smaller clubs.

The issues raised by the OP’s post clearly show the need for proper leadership of these teams and broader use of experienced mentors.