1 Mile Payload to 1 mile(+-100ft)

[rocket1student]

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.)

 

[NTP2]

All I’m going to say is that from experience messing around in open rocket you will need a I motor.

 

[rocket1student]

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.)

 

[Art Upton]

FYI to others: https://www.systemsgo.org/

 

[Art Upton]

Based on the Events on that website, why don't you chose to Exceed the speed of sound rather then loft a 1 pound [hammer] to a mile?

 

[Hobie1dog]

type In 1 lb pay load in the search engine and you will get multiple topics that have already been discussed
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/high-power-rocket-motors.170334/

 

[rocket1student]

Based on the Events on that website, why don't you chose to Exceed the speed of sound rather then loft a 1 pound [hammer] to a mile?

If I remember correctly, breaking the sound barrier is for the "Rocket 2" class. So to answer your question, we simply weren't given the option.

 

[cls]

I'd like to have some words with the bozos who came up with such a goal. I don't think it's appropriate for beginners, especially juniors. My $0.03.

 

[rfjustin]

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.)

Sounds like a great program! My .02, concentrate more on the goals first. Don't prioritize "out of the box", that should come second or third after some level of experience is gained. Enjoy the ride!

 

[rocket1student]

All I’m going to say is that from experience messing around in open rocket you will need a I motor.

Need or prefer?

 

[rocket1student]

I'd like to have some words with the bozos who came up with such a goal. I don't think it's appropriate for beginners, especially juniors. My $0.03.

Curious to know what kind of prep. you would recommend before trying to reach this goal? Not challenging your opinion, just want to learn more. We messed around with some low power rockets at the beginning of the school year, 2 different small rockets. First engine being a B6-4, then C6-5. Rockets were designed in Rocksim before constructing them.

 

[OzHybrid]

I'd like to have some words with the bozos who came up with such a goal. I don't think it's appropriate for beginners, especially juniors. My $0.03.

Probably the same ones who took the pictures of the launch with a horizontal flag indicating a windspeed of over 25 MPH........... and a rocket windcocking.....

 

[SolarYellow]

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.)

People who actually know stuff will be impressed with simple, elegant solutions that get the job done. For an experienced engineer, the more KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), the better.

One college summer when I was an intern, there was another intern who spent the whole summer trying to design and build an "out of the box" airplane that would fly a particular flight profile. It never did. At the end of the summer, when it became clear that that was not going to be successful, one of the techs at the company went the the local hobby shop, bought an off-the-shelf ARF model and engine, assembled it all that night, and flew the flight profile the next afternoon.

I would focus on demonstrating excellence. Make it easy. If there are no special geometric requirements, just the simple requirement of lifting a pound, just design a simple, minimum-diameter, 4FNC rocket to do the job. I would strongly suggest the payload be a cardboard cylinder full of sand or something like that. Make it so it will do as little harm as possible if it falls unrestrained from a mile altitude. You do NOT want a solid slug of metal - as someone said above, a hammer that will go through a car, a roof, a person, etc. Make the rocket a simple, standard dual-deploy with redundant altimeters and a mid-body split. That is the standard practice because evolution has demonstrated it to work very, very well for most people, most of the time. To depart from this, you should have to convince yourselves and your adviser that the alternative design will in fact be functionally superior.

If you want to "polish" it and make it fancy, develop your workmanship skills in finishing and detailing the design. Things like cleanly and perfectly beveled fin LE/TE, aerodynamic rail buttons, etc.

Simple and standard done as well as you can do it is your best path to success.

 

[tsmith1315]

Curious to know what kind of prep. you would recommend before trying to reach this goal? Not challenging your opinion, just want to learn more. We messed around with some low power rockets at the beginning of the school year, 2 different small rockets. First engine being a B6-4, then C6-5. Rockets were designed in Rocksim before constructing them.

An H-I motor flight isn’t totally ridiculous, but a full I-motor is almost a 6400% increase in impulse over a C6-5.

There are a lot of intermediate steps in between that would be just as technically challenging as the one you were given. Even the same goal you were given excepting a lower payload mass would be no less of a challenge.

One college summer when I was an intern, there was another intern who spent the whole summer trying to design and build an "out of the box" airplane that would fly a particular flight profile. It never did. At the end of the summer, when it became clear that that was not going to be successful, one of the techs at the company went the the local hobby shop, bought an off-the-shelf ARF model and engine, assembled it all that night, and flew the flight profile the next afternoon.

This is a great story. It should be a sticky one-post thread for reference.

 

[kramer714]

um, it is ready, aim then fire.... I wouldn't worry about the motor yet.

I would suggest you start playing around with open rocket / rock sim, Use the 1 lb payload and design up a SINGLE deploy rocket. Assume the weight is 10-20% heavier than the sim (figure out how to change that too) and go. My only suggestion to you is try it with a 3" body tube and 4 fins. Once you have a sim that seems to work then....

Then, on the sim add dual deploy (add a coupler, switch band, and additional body tube) using the single deploy as the booster and the same nose cone. Understand how you will hold the sections together, what a reasonable parachute size is for each, and even where the parachutes go on the shock cord.

Once you have both sims figured out, including 3 or 4 motors that meet your height. BEFORE you start building, go to a local launch and find someone to look at your design (from the sims), motor choices and expected performance. Assuming the experienced flyer likes (approves? Endorses? ) your design, build the single deploy version for your JR. Level 1 flight. Put an altimeter in it JUST TO RECORD the flight. After you have flown it a few times then.....

Build and add the dual deploy coupler / av bay. Understand (ask the mentor) how to test this. Ground test and then fly that a few times (as a JR level 1). Assuming that is successful and you learn about electronics, building, and have a 'mentor or two' at the local launch you demonstrated basic skills to, then.....

"...... come up with an extremely "out of the box" idea for our rocket to impress anyone who we present it to...." Use parts of the first rocket if you want, but assuming you don't blow your schedule, I will bet that you learn enough making the first one that you would rather 'start over' on the build for the out of the box. Build and fly that.....

I would be much more impressed by a student that takes this approach than one that goes for "out of the box" as they learn what to do. Plus want (need?) a mentor? It may be easier to get their attention and trust taking this approach.

just my thoughts

 

[kramer714]

um, it is ready, aim then fire....

I would suggest you start playing around with open rocket / rock sim, Use the 1 lb payload and design up a SINGLE deploy rocket. Assume the weight is 10-20% heavier than the sim (figure out how to change that too) and go. My only suggestion to you is try it with a 3" body tube and 4 fins. Once you have a sim that seems to work then....

Then, on the sim add dual deploy (add a coupler, switch band, and additional body tube) using the single deploy as the booster and the same nose cone. Understand how you will hold the sections together, what a reasonable parachute size is for each, and even where the parachutes go on the shock cord.

Once you have both sims figured out, including 3 or 4 motors that meet your height. BEFORE you start building, go to a local launch and find someone to look at your design (from the sims), motor choices and expected performance. Assuming the experienced flyer likes (approves? Endorses? ) your design, build the single deploy version for your JR. Level 1 flight. Put an altimeter in it JUST TO RECORD the flight. After you have flown it a few times then.....

Build and add the dual deploy coupler / av bay. Understand (ask the mentor) how to test this. Ground test and then fly that a few times (as a JR level 1). Assuming that is successful and you learn about electronics, building, and have a 'mentor or two' at the local launch you demonstrated basic skills to, then.....

"...... come up with an extremely "out of the box" idea for our rocket to impress anyone who we present it to...." Use parts of the first rocket if you want, but assuming you don't blow your schedule, I will bet that you learn enough making the first one that you would rather 'start over' on the build for the out of the box. Build and fly that.....

I would be much more impressed by a student that takes this approach than one that goes for "out of the box" as they learn what to do. Plus want (need?) a mentor? It may be easier to get their attention and trust taking this approach.

just my thoughts

 

[rocket1student]

Sidenote: Title is an honest mistake. I realize that my error may show my lack of experience in the subject, I tried to edit the title but no luck.

 

[rocket1student]

Might be worthy to mention that groups present their rocket presentation to a large room ranging from parents to high-level NASA employees. My school is typically expected to bring an out of the ordinary rocket as my teacher encourages the idea of us being unique. We certainly will focus on functionality and safety over all. Thanks for the feedback

 

[Titan II]

Sidenote: Title is an honest mistake. I realize that my error may show my lack of experience in the subject, I tried to edit the title but no luck.

A moderator can change it.

BTW...ignore the Bozos dissing you or the program. This forum is full of people who like to put down others. Also, you will get a lot of excellent advice. However, you will find a lot of misinformation, distortions, and downright bad information. Watch who you listen to.

This is not rocket science. The goals you are to achieve are well within reason and I wish you well. Get back in the box. A 3FNC or 4FNC with standard redundent dual deploy will serve you well. You can slant your presentation to justify your decisions.

 

[rcktnut]

I'd like to have some words with the bozos who came up with such a goal. I don't think it's appropriate for beginners, especially juniors. My $0.03.

https://www.systemsgo.org/ Looks like a great program to me. watch the video

ROCKETS is the annual culminating event of the SystemsGo STEM curriculum, in which high school students design, build, and launch rockets with goals to loft a one-pound payload one mile high, or exceed the speed of sound.

 

[Art Upton]

Might be worthy to mention that groups present their rocket presentation to a large room ranging from parents to high-level NASA employees. My school is typically expected to bring an out of the ordinary rocket as my teacher encourages the idea of us being unique. We certainly will focus on functionality and safety over all. Thanks for the feedback

I spanned a Decade [with one year off as a family death happened] of being LCO for NASA Student Launch in Huntsville AL/ USLI and the Collage teams and some exceptional High School teams had to present their Rocket and "Science Project" it would launch in a Trade show environment. Aerospace Professionals sponsoring this would examine them all...

Most of the time, the ones out of the box did not work correct the first time they were let out of the box; Maybe a few years later they got it. One or two got it the first time.

In my humble opinion I would focus on something that Works the First Time out of the Gate and then add more to it.

Not sure why your mentor wants to focus on out of the box rather then what works on the "First Rodeo"... You save that out of the box for later Rodeos .

 

[Titan II]

Is there any more specifics we should be aware of other than:

1. Must weigh at or under 30 lbs
2. Must have dual deployment
3. No sharp metal edges/nose cone
4. Must land within 1000 ft. radius of takeoff.

and take the rocket to a distance of 1 mile with a 1 pound payload safely and recover the rocket.

Details help us help you.

 

[Art Upton]

"4. Must land within 1000 ft. radius of takeoff."

This seems like an important one, as a mile high getting it to 1000 radius on landing can be tricky in wind.

Launching from 1.5-2 mile launch sites and seeing some get to the edges [and a few beyond that] that is also something to think about...

 

[rocket1student]

"4. Must land within 1000 ft. radius of takeoff."

This seems like an important one, as a mile high getting it to 1000 radius on landing can be tricky in wind.

Launching from 1.5-2 mile launch sites and seeing some get to the edges [and a few beyond that] that is also something to think about...

This is definitely a challenging rule, but was set into place because approx. 1200 ft. away from the launch site is a large body of water. I've been pondering if there's a justification for breaking the rules of landing in a 1000 ft. radius, that is of course if we could somehow land the rocket in the body of water safely and intact. It seems like if I had the right protection and setup, the water would hurt a lot less than dirt. Just a thought though...

 

[Titan II]

This is definitely a challenging rule, but was set into place because approx. 1200 ft. away from the launch site is a large body of water. I've been pondering if there's a justification for breaking the rules of landing in a 1000 ft. radius, that is of course if we could somehow land the rocket in the body of water safely and intact. It seems like if I had the right protection and setup, the water would hurt a lot less than dirt. Just a thought though...

Don't waste your time going in that direction. Dirt, hard or soft, is fine if you descend at the right speed and have a properly prepared rocket. I have explored and experimented with water landing. It can be done, but it is complicated. First, you you cannot use a cardboard rocket. Keeping the electronics dry is another challenge. I would also think that changing the rules for you would be frowned upon.

 

[rocket1student]

I spanned a Decade [with one year off as a family death happened] of being LCO for NASA Student Launch in Huntsville AL/ USLI and the Collage teams and some exceptional High School teams had to present their Rocket and "Science Project" it would launch in a Trade show environment. Aerospace Professionals sponsoring this would examine them all...

Most of the time, the ones out of the box did not work correct the first time they were let out of the box; Maybe a few years later they got it. One or two got it the first time.

In my humble opinion I would focus on something that Works the First Time out of the Gate and then add more to it.

Not sure why your mentor wants to focus on out of the box rather then what works on the "First Rodeo"... You save that out of the box for later Rodeos .

Out of the box does not always have to mean that there is no priority on functionality. The ideal outcome of the "First Rodeo" would not only be to take a one pound payload to one mile, but also to create a rocket like nothing seen before. (hence not using a kit).

 

[Art Upton]

look up FAA wavier rules that recovery zone must be 1/4 of the max altitude. Look it up in FAR 101 rockets rules by FAA

 

[Art Upton]

Out of the box does not always have to mean that there is no priority on functionality. The ideal outcome of the "First Rodeo" would not only be to take a one pound payload to one mile, but also to create a rocket like nothing seen before. (hence not using a kit).

There has likely never seen a rocket before that has not been done before, including one with a Toilet Bowl Float as a Nose cone.

 

[rocket1student]

There has likely never seen a rocket before that has not been done before, including one with a Toilet Bowl Float as a Nose cone.

I will respectfully take your comment as a challenge.

 

[Antares JS]

As an engineer currently working in the space launch industry, "out of the box" solutions are overrated. They are called for only when you have a truly unique, never-before-seen mission requirement, such as when Elon Musk tasked SpaceX with making a recoverable and reusable first stage.

Prioritize your mission requirements and fulfill them to the best of your ability. Don't worry about making some fancy thing in an attempt to impress your audience. Doing so increases your risk of the project failing completely, and even if whatever gizmo you try to make works, a real engineer is more likely to look at it and say, "Why did you spend all this time on something that wasnt a requirement instead of just using this simpler solution that already existed?"