New EMRR Virtual Contest

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

afterburner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
It’s cold outside, so what better than another EMRR virtual contest to keep these rocket designing skills honed for the next flying season…

That’s right. Put some more wood in the fireplace, grab your favorite blankie, and start thinking about that ultimate rocket ship. The one that will flatten the competition. The one that will earn you first place in the virtual contest, and secure your place in the pantheon of rocket designers. The one that will ensure world domination. The one that… errr… OK let’s get back to the topic.

To get you started, here is the theme of the next EMRR Virtual Contest. The idea here is to gather some of your feedback and refine the rules so that we have a smooth contest (as much as possible).

So, here you go. Have a look and let me know what you think (and try to keep it constructive or I will unleash the rocket gods’ wrath on your entry during the contest).
_______________________________________________


The theme for this contest is Big and Fat.
This contest was inspired by the new Airbus A380 carrier. This monster of the skies will be able to carry 555 passengers with a range of about 9000 miles.
As we all know, life is not only made of minimum diameter rockets, and it is often necessary to have a decent amount of cargo space while maintaining flexibility and good overall performance.

Rocket Design Requirements:

•Cargo Space requirements:

o All designs must have an internal cargo space (payload space) of at least 555 cubic inches. You may have more cargo space than the minimum.

o The cargo area must have an outside diameter of at least 4.000 inches. Use the table below to determine the minimum length of your payload area based on popular airframe sizes. The smaller the diameter, the longer the payload area has to be. Your choices are not limited to these sizes. You can use whatever is in the Rocksim database. The formula to determine the minimum length of the cargo area is L= 555 / (PI*ID*ID/4).

Tubing ID Minimum Length Required
PML PT-3.9 3.900 46.5
LOC BT-5.38 5.380 24.4
PML PT-6.0 6.007 19.6
LOC BT-7.51 7.515 12.5

o Note: This is the minimum available space required. Shoulders do not count. For example, if you connect to a nosecone or a transition, then the space taken by the shoulder of the nosecone / transition is not counted as cargo space. Couplers are allowed in the cargo bay without penalty.

o You may not use the cargo space for your parachute, shock cord, or any other object. This space is reserved for the payloads used in events 2 and 3.

o For multi-stage designs, the cargo space has to be in the sustainer.

•Body Tubes:

o All tubing must come from RockSim database.
o Tubing sections may not be longer than their database default lengths. Tubing sections must be joined by realistic couplers, bulkheads, transitions, centering rings, or sleeves.
o Each rocket must have at least two different airframe sizes. There is no minimum length.

•Motor Configuration:

o Designer's choice, with a minimum of 2 engines (staged or cluster)
o Maximum total impulse allowed is 2560 N-S (full K motor).
o You must choose your motors for each Event
o All motor tubes have to be filled for all events. Motor size may be one size smaller than the motor mount tube (i.e. 38 mm in 54 mm, 29 mm in 38 mm, etc…).
o Motor delays must be per the .eng file (apogee event)
o No manual modification of the .eng file
o Motor overhang will be the default 0.5 inches unless told otherwise.
o If you use more than one stage or want to do air-starts, you must include a mass of 2 ounces for electronics.

•Fins:

o There must be at least 2 sets of 3 - 8 fins.

o Each qualified set must have a semi-span and a root length equal or greater than half the diameter of the tube it is mounted to. (You know why; this judge does not like microscopic fins)

o At least one fin set must be a Custom Design with at least 7 corners (include leading and trailing edges). Corners closer than 1/8" to each other are allowed but do not count toward the required number (the idea is to have interesting shapes and not just rounded corners).

o Additional sets of 2-8 fins are optional. These extra fins do not need to meet the location, semi-span, or root-length requirements. (microscopic fins can go here)

o Fins can not be any thinner than 3/16 (0.188”) of an inch if balsa, cardboard, or paper, or 1/16" (0.063”) if stronger material.

o Tube fins and ring fins are allowed, but must have both their mass and drag accounted for.

•Recovery:

o Parachute recovery.
o Parachute must be at least 0.001" thick.
o Maximum size: Whatever will fit into the body tube.
o Minimum size: Speed at landing must be less than 20 feet/sec.
o You must include a realistic shock cord.

•Launch lugs are OPTIONAL. We will be flying from our trusty virtual 6-foot tower.

•Materials must be standard weights that are in the Rocksim database

•Materials must be standard thicknesses that are in the Rocksim database

•NO CP Overrides

•NO Mass Overrides (other than those in the standard RockSim database)

•Mass Objects ARE allowed for adjusting CG. Mass objects may not be located in the cargo area of the rocket.

•Must have at least 1 caliber of stability (RockSim Based) when loaded with your selected motor(s)

Contest Events:

•Your rockets will participate in four events and will accumulate a total score. All events will use a 6-foot (72") launch tower and your choice of motor configuration (different for each event). For each event, you must also choose a launch angle, no more than +/- 20 degrees.


1. Altitude efficiency: Go as high as you can, but do it efficiently. The score for this event will be calculated as follows:

Altitude efficiency based on cargo volume = Max Altitude * cargo volume / total impulse.

Settings for this event will be: calm winds (0-2 mph), fairly constant speed (0.01). No thermals.

2. Cargo Efficiency: It is important for your design to be able to carry a large payload to far away destinations. For this contest you will carry a payload (mass object of your choice) in your cargo area and try to keep it in the air as long as possible.

Score = time in the air * cargo weight in ounces * cargo volume in cubic inches.

(Hint: Remember to maintain your landing speed under 20 feet/sec.)

Settings for this event will be: calm winds (0-2 mph), fairly constant speed (0.01). No thermals.

3. Accuracy: The score for this event will be based on a combined ranking from two categories. For this event your mission is to lift your bird to an altitude of 500 feet and land it as close as possible to the pad. You must carry a 3-pound payload for this event.

3a) closest to 500 feet altitude
3b) closest to the pad

(Hint: This is mainly about engine selection and launch rod angle.)

Settings for this event will be: calm winds (0-2 mph), fairly constant speed (0.01). No thermals.

4. Drag Race: The score for this event will be based on a combined ranking from these two categories. No payload for this event.

4a) Fastest time to clear the tower
4b) Highest top speed

(Hint: Lightweight rockets will give you an edge here).
Settings for this event will be: calm winds (0-2 mph), fairly constant speed (0.01). No thermals.


•Flight Conditions:

o Cloud Coverage: No Thermals
o Launch Guide Length: 72 inches
o Misfires: None

•DQ Conditions

o The only cause for DQ is if your landing speed is higher than 20 feet/sec.

__________________________________________
 
Excellent events! These are exactly the kind of straight out duration events that I was hoping to find in a contest.

Will there be any "out of bounds" rules? Can 'chutes be changed for different events? Can there be random negative thermals for any rocket involving mythology? No...?

I really like the variety of events and the building requirements. Seems like it will be fun.

But....how about a rule about cutting the scores in half of any entrant with the initials "BC"? Fine...I guess I'll just have to make a really good design to beat him then....:D
 
Wow, I know I said go for it, but that was fast. Let me get the site caught up on 3/1 to officially kick off this new VC.

The prizes will come from the 14-day EMRR Fund Drive!

Regards,
Nick
 
Originally posted by PunkRocketScience
Excellent events! These are exactly the kind of straight out duration events that I was hoping to find in a contest.

Will there be any "out of bounds" rules? Can 'chutes be changed for different events? Can there be random negative thermals for any rocket involving mythology? No...?

I really like the variety of events and the building requirements. Seems like it will be fun.

But....how about a rule about cutting the scores in half of any entrant with the initials "BC"? Fine...I guess I'll just have to make a really good design to beat him then....:D

Right now I am leaning towards:

No "out of bounds" rules (very little wind anyway).
same recovery device throughout the contest.


I am working on the random negative thermals and the "appearing/disappearing" mass object for Bob Cox's entry. ;)
 
Originally posted by PunkRocketScience
Can there be random negative thermals for any rocket involving mythology?
...how about a rule about cutting the scores in half of any entrant with the initials "BC"?
Originally posted by Afterburner
I am working on the random negative thermals and the "appearing/disappearing" mass object for Bob Cox's entry. ;)

:rolleyes: Sheesh, I go away for a week and I come back to find you guys conspiring against me! I can understand why Chan Stevens is out to get me, but what have I ever done to you guys? :confused:

Seriously though, these look like a great set of rules. I hope my day job slows down enough to let me do a good entry for this contest.
 
Aww, Bob...Just sit back and enjoy our pitiful envy of your status as the Evil Overlord of the Rocksim Universe! :D
 
Guys,

Sit back a relax for a moment and look at some facts:

Bob participated in VC#2-4 and 6-9 (he was the judge for #5)

Bob lost to Chan Stevens in #2
Bob lost to Bill Krosney in #4 (BTW, where is Bill?)
Bob lost to Me and Chan Stevens (taking 3rd) in #7
Bob took 14th (ouch!) in #8 and Chan Stevens won it
Bob took 1st in #9 (but Chan Stevens was the judge & I didn't plan)

So in 7 contests he has only won 3. I'm not saying he is a force to be reckoned with, but the on VC that I participated in he wasn't! :p (hee, hee)

People to watch out for:

David Allen took 2nd place in VC#9 which was his first contest!
David Austerberry getting close to repeating his first contest 1st place.
Bruce Levison the only participate in EVERY contest. He's gotta win soon!
Steve Naquin, improved position each contest he's been in.
Mike Pontikos another high placement for a 1st contest
Peter Stanley in 2 contests went from 21st to 8th... he's starting to get it.



I'm starting to envision VC#11, a Masters Contest. Anyone that has placed in the top 3 may compete.... okay, I'm getting ahead of myself.

I will get these rules for #10 posted by 3/1. Enjoy.

Nick
 
I know...It's just that SOMEONE has to have a target on them and it has evolved from the rivalry between Bob and Chan into Bob being the one that you love to hate! Okay, hate is too strong a word, but you know what I mean...

He's Darth Vader, ED209, Doctor Doom and the gremlins...
 
And, here's another way to look at it:

For individuals that have at least participated in two contests we have the following Top 10.

Note, the weighted score is based on place taken and total number of participants. In other words, if someone took 3rd in a contest with 10 entrants, they would receive 7 points. If they took third out of 20 entrants they would receive 17 points.

This score was then divided by the number of contests that the person participated in, to get a per contest score. (NOTE, I left me in there for comparison).

Anyhow, there are a number of ways to slice up the data... but this one was interesting (to me).

See below for a new data picture

Nick
 
Yikes! Boy, if I'm gonna get an invite to the Masters, I gotta do well in this one!
Enjoy your status as the Bad Boy of Rocksim, Bob, 'cause I'm going to take this one!

By the way....here's the truth behind the mask...
 
Originally posted by PunkRocketScience
By the way....here's the truth behind the mask...

Ooo, ooo, or maybe, ooo, ooo, this one for the featured reviewer page!

Originally posted by PunkRocketScience
Enjoy your status as the Bad Boy of Rocksim, Bob, 'cause I'm going to take this one!

Okay, then, I'll sit out on this one. Don't want to cause you to lose this opportunity ;)

Nick
 
Oh, no...I'm gonna take you too, Nick. BRING IT ON! (Hmmm... now isn't it always the one who talks the most smack that gets voted off the launch pad first?)

Don't take it too serious guys...just having fun!
 
Originally posted by BobCox
Only on weekends. (See attached photo.)

Pretty cool how you were able to Photoshop out that big honkin' seam line between the two tubes :D It looks much better than my post-zipper repair scar...

--Chan Stevens
 
Originally posted by EMRR

Anyhow, there are a number of ways to slice up the data... but this one was interesting (to me).

Nick

Am I reading that wrong, or have I really participated in all those contests? I thought VC8 was my first one.. :confused:

Phil
 
Originally posted by WiK
Am I reading that wrong, or have I really participated in all those contests? I thought VC8 was my first one.. :confused:

Phil

I'l check, seems like I may have missed a column in the sort! Doh!
 
Originally posted by EMRR
Should I update your Featured Reviewer page?
Yes, please do.
Which is a better likeness?
The Alan Greenspan look-alike. Todd did a great job bringing out the true monkey-boy behind the mask. Athough, my hair doesn't look that good in real life. ;)
 
Okay, I've re-done the data to show the top performers (folks that have participated in at least 2 contests).

Enjoy.
 
Bob suggested ( can you guess why? ;) ) looking at the data using percentages. So, this eliminates the advantage some would have that placed high in contests with a lot of participants. This way if you took 1st in a contest with 11 people, you get 100% (verses 11 points) and if you placed 1st in a contest with 28 people you'd get 100% (verses 28 points).

As I said earlier, there are a lot of ways to slice up the data. Some may want to assign contest difficulty too (not me though).

Here is the data crunched and again only showing those that have participated in at least two contests.

Enjoy (again).

Nick
 
In response to ZeroG Aerospace offering payload space in it's first consumer launch (here's the link at ROL):

https://www.rocketryonline.com/Search/db_search.cgi?setup_file=News&submit_search=yes&db_id=1435

I've decided to sell virtual payload space in my payload contest rocket! Anyone looking to purchase said payload space should send me large sums of cash, preferably in small, untracable bills. I'll send you a certificate guarenteeing that your payload was virtually launched that is suitable for framing! :D
 
Your virtual non-sequentially numbered bills are en route in a virtual briefcase travelling via DHL Virtually Overnight service.
 
Originally posted by PunkRocketScience
In response to ZeroG Aerospace offering payload space in it's first consumer launch (here's the link at ROL):

https://www.rocketryonline.com/Search/db_search.cgi?setup_file=News&submit_search=yes&db_id=1435

I've decided to sell virtual payload space in my payload contest rocket! Anyone looking to purchase said payload space should send me large sums of cash, preferably in small, untracable bills. I'll send you a certificate guarenteeing that your payload was virtually launched that is suitable for framing! :D

LOL, try contacting some tech companies to sponsor their logos on your virtual entries :) Who knows, might find a taker (?)
 
Actually RockSim does a poor job of simulating "short fat" designs where the length to diameter (L/D or aspect) ratio is less than 10:1. Recently, I came up with a way to compensate for the extra base drag in these designs visit: https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter154.pdf
I have three other parts to this article which haven't even been published yet. Bob Cox already knows half of what is in the second part of the short wide rocket simulation articles.

Since these short fat rockets are not accurately simulated by the RockSim software, you probably should restrict the contest to designs with a L/D greater thatn 10:1.

Would spool rocket designs be allowed in this contest? These will be covered in the last unpublished part of my short wide rockets article.

RockSim does a poor job at simulating tube and ring fins. The software is way over conservative in terms of drag and CP location for these shapes. Can I use my published method that estimates the CP and drag of these designs for the flight simulations.

Can I use a flying saucer design that takes into account the base drag as I published in the above article? Can I use a pyramid-like design (no body tube)? What about funnel fins. Does a ring fin count the same as a full set of three fins?

Why do you feel its important to have some wind speed variability? This variability will only serve to randomly punish a good design or promote a bad one.

When is the contest deadline? The last few contests had to be extended so why not try and shoot for one that's really attainable.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

One wonders if I will I ever win one of these contests!
 
Bruce,

Interesting questions. Let me try to answer them…

Regarding the L/D ratio: The theme of the contest is not really “short and fat”. The idea is to provide cargo space and still be competitive in the events outlined in the rules. Based on the rules of the contest and the feedback received so far, I do not see a need to limit the L/D ratio. Are you saying the short stubby rockets would have the advantage? Maybe you have seen an opportunity that others have not seen yet….

“Would spool rocket designs be allowed in this contest? These will be covered in the last unpublished part of my short wide rockets article.”: Honestly, I don’t see what benefits a spool rocket would provide in this contest. It seems to me the spool rocket design would only give you a high-drag-low-cargo-capacity entry. If you feel you can have a winning design with a spool rocket please go ahead and do it. If you have specific questions about how the rules would apply in your case, send me a private email and we will discuss.

“RockSim does a poor job at simulating tube and ring fins. The software is way over conservative in terms of drag and CP location for these shapes. Can I use my published method that estimates the CP and drag of these designs for the flight simulations.”. Sorry, no CP override is allowed. I understand that Rocksim has some limitations, but if we start allowing for CP overrides I feel we will be opening a big can of worms.

“Can I use a flying saucer design that takes into account the base drag as I published in the above article? Can I use a pyramid-like design (no body tube)? What about funnel fins. Does a ring fin count the same as a full set of three fins?”: If any of this involves overriding the CP or the Drag numbers provided by Rocksim, then the answer is no. I do not see how I could run a fair contest if I allow these numbers to be changed by every participant. Maybe someone else will figure out a way to allow this in future contests (?)

“Why do you feel it’s important to have some wind speed variability? This variability will only serve to randomly punish a good design or promote a bad one.”: I do not feel it is really important, which is why all events have calm winds (0-2 mph), fairly constant speed (0.01), and no thermals. I doubt this will have a significant impact on the contest results.

“When is the contest deadline? The last few contests had to be extended so why not try and shoot for one that's really attainable.”: Don’t know yet. I will keep your comment in mind…

Like I said earlier, these are good questions and I am always amazed at the creativity displayed during these contests. You seem to have considered pretty much every possibility. However, something tells me you will be surprising us with something unusual in this contest.
:eek:
 
Originally posted by teflonrocketry1
Why do you feel its important to have some wind speed variability? This variability will only serve to randomly punish a good design or promote a bad one.
I think the barely-random settings that were chosen for this contest are just right.
1) Real life air conditions are almost always more variable than that.
2) In one of the early contests somebody came within 0.02% of the target altitude, only to be beaten by someone who got within 0.002%. Is that really an indication of a superior design? Other designs missed the target by about 60%, so there was still plenty of difference between the good designs and the poor ones.
With the barely-random settings the flight-to-flight variability would be about 0.05%. As a contestant, I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to squeeze out that last 0.001% of performance.

One wonders if I will I ever win one of these contests!
Don't get discouraged, Bruce. Your entries are usually very competitive. In most contests the winner does really well in a few events and not so well in some others, but they get away with it because their closest competitors have their weakest events at the same time. It's like a game of rock-paper-scissors. I think it's only a matter of time before you pull out a rock at the same time the other leaders pull out scissors.

Some tips:
1) Stay away from the fancy stuff like ring fins and tube fins. Stick with simple designs with low drag and optimal mass.
2) Bribe or blackmail the judge. ;)
 
Afterburner,

First, there is no way to use the RockSim program to override a CP value. However, you can override a CD value, and I was not even considering this. Second, short fat rockets like the Estes Fatboy are known to fly stable with less than one caliber margins of stability; how are you going to handle that fact in this contest? Third, there are other techniques that can be used to approximate the effects of things like dynamic base drag stabilization, ring tail fin CP and tube fin CP; I want to know if these empirical simulation techniques are allowed in this contest. I don't have a problem if you don't see the advantage of using a spool or saucer design in this contest as long as you allow this type of design. I will definately consider entering a design of one of these types without applying any overrides to their CP or Cd!

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
A few questions.

Does the payload have to be in a body tube, or can it be in the nose cone?
Tubing sections must be joined by realistic couplers, bulkheads, transitions, centering rings, or sleeves.
So we can have custom ones, you just have to approve them as realistic?
Each rocket must have at least two different airframe sizes
Does this mean that the rocket must have at least two different diameters at two different sections?
Will the events be weighted? I.E. You get more for winning one event than another?
Regarding the L/D ratio: The theme of the contest is not really “short and fat”. The idea is to provide cargo space and still be competitive in the events outlined in the rules. Based on the rules of the contest and the feedback received so far, I do not see a need to limit the L/D ratio. Are you saying the short stubby rockets would have the advantage? Maybe you have seen an opportunity that others have not seen yet….
A preliminary design I tried that had an L/D ratio of about 8:1 and for no explainable reason it just would not fly well. I think the reason is that the Cd was wrong, Rocksim predicted .164. However, the altitude achieved however doesn't match up. From my tests, it appears that Short stubby rockets are incorrectly simulated, reaching lower altitudes than it appears they should.

But then, I am new to this, and Rocksim has suprised me many time with things that didn't seem right to me.
 
Originally posted by RaVen1357
A few questions.

Does the payload have to be in a body tube, or can it be in the nose cone?

The revised rules say that the cargo bay is not limited to straigth sections...

So we can have custom ones, you just have to approve them as realistic?

Correct.

Does this mean that the rocket must have at least two different diameters at two different sections?

Yes. Two different diameters.

Will the events be weighted? I.E. You get more for winning one event than another?

All events will have the same weight.

A preliminary design I tried that had an L/D ratio of about 8:1 and for no explainable reason it just would not fly well. I think the reason is that the Cd was wrong, Rocksim predicted .164. However, the altitude achieved however doesn't match up. From my tests, it appears that Short stubby rockets are incorrectly simulated, reaching lower altitudes than it appears they should.

It probably has to do with the "dynamic stability" that Rocksim calculates. I'm sure Rocksim experts will chime in here. If you plot the graph of the flight you will probably see some wild oscillations. There are ways to reduce them by chaiging your design or your motor selection...

But then, I am new to this, and Rocksim has suprised me many time with things that didn't seem right to me.
 
Back
Top