Rocket Report

Will Biesinger Period A4 Mr. Hendricks AMES

Abstract
This project describes the aspects of rockets that are only observable in a controlled experiment. The predicted analysis of the rockets thrust was calculated to initially receive an idea of how high it would actually go. Within the thrust analysis, data was obtained from a fixed rocket engine attached to a force meter. The drag force was then calculated to figure out the amount of force air resistance had on the rocket which we got respectively from the knowledge of the drag coefficient of the rocket. A numerical model was then created, which contained the data from the thrust analysis, for the primary purpose of predicting height. Predictions of height without the presence of air resistance were also conducted to illustrate the importance of drag force. The actual rocket was then launched and we got the actual height of the rocket by having three volunteers evenly spaced, measure to angle with a sextant. The predictions were then compared with the final flight results. The predicted height of the rocket in the experiment was approximately 238.56 meters. The rocket with the C6 had a total mass of .094 kg. The actual results when compared to the predictions were actually quite close with the actual height being

Introduction
The reason for the project is the application of the knowledge gained in kinematics and dynamics in one large hands-on project. The project was essentially about the idea of predicting the height of a model rocket with the calculations of drag force, thrust, and other important factors. The project will dually require the accurate comprehension of data and calculations. Vocabulary that will be essential to know while reading the report: Kinematics the study of motion. Dynamics the study of how forces affect movement. Impulse- the force with respect to the amount of propellant used per unit time. Momentum- the product of mass and velocity of an object. Drag Force- the force of air resistance. Drag Coefficient- measurement used to quantify an objects resistance in a fluid.

Another aspect worth knowing is the significance of different types of rocket engines such as C6, B6, or C4. The capital letter denotes the average impulse while the number is the average force.

Engine Thrust Analysis

Procedure: For the experiment itself, the materials would consist of a makeshift device consisting of a near frictionless track with a small cart on it, candy box attached to the cart, a digital force gauge (measures pushing and pulling forces, in this case pushing forces), a cable connecting the force gauge to a CVL on a TI-84 Plus, program Datamate, rocket engine (initially unknown), 12 volt battery, jumper cables, and an igniter on the rocket. The candy box, with the rocket engine inside, was set to push on the force gauge once ignition began. The calculator had to be zeroed in order to get the most accurate results. A volunteer was chosen to push on the candy box at approximately five newtons to test if the program was working properly. The program was set to record data every tenth of a second on the time graph. Fifty samples were entered to compensate for five seconds as that is more than enough time for the rocket to burn. The result should be negative (force) as pushing is technically negative force but for the sake of realistic logic, the time graph will show positively measured force. Negative force doesnt make sense. The calculator will be set on triggering mode as soon as the force gauge reads -1 newton. One minor discrepancy was the triggering mode accidently was set on 1 newton rather -1. The problem with 1 newton is obvious. The volunteer then pushed on the candy box again at approximately 8 newtons, which was successful. An igniter was then placed in the rockets which will receive an electrical signal and therefore light the phosphorous lighting the rocket. The rocket was then launched, burning for about two seconds. The calculator recorded the data and a table was constructed from the data to calculate impulse. A force versus time graph was created to graph the data for a visual model. The conclusion of the experimentation resulted in the calculation of total impulse, average force, and figured out the kind of engine the rocket was. The rocket engine turned out to be a C6. The impulse was discovered to be 7.8 while the average force was found to be approximately 4 newtons. When the rocket in the candy box was launched, it was skewed hence the force gauge measured data that is slightly below the actual impulse and force. The data could then misleadingly lead someone to believe we had a C4 rather than a C6.

Time 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Force 0.7712 6.567 6.799 4.382 3.792 3.837 3.764 3.776 3.837 3.764 3.678 3.782 3.77 3.715 3.837 3.666 3.507 3.635 3.825 2.087 0.18967

Impulse 0.07712 0.6567 0.6799 0.4382 0.3792 0.3837 0.3764 0.3776 0.3837 0.3767 0.3678 0.3872 0.377 0.3715 0.3837 0.3666 0.3507 0.3635 0.3825 0.2087 0.018967

Thrust Analysis Data

Impulse was calculated using the formula: impulse equals sum of forces multiplied by the change in time. Time was set at a range of 0.5 to 2.5 as that was the range containing the relevant numbers showcasing that the rocket was doing something besides sitting in a stationary position. The force column simply shows the total force for the given time interval of .1 at that specific moment.

Calculation of Total Impulse:

To calculate the total impulse, all of the data from the impulse row column was added together. The total impulse equaled approximately 7.8 newton/seconds. Because of the rockets skewed performance on the digital force meter, 7.8 n/s would most likely be a little lower than the actual. Therefore, it can be deduced that the engine is a C.

Calculation of Average Force:

To calculate the average force, all of the data in the force column was added and then divided by 21. The resulting value is 3.65 newtons. This value is lower than the actual therefore it is closest to 6 newtons. The rocket would conclusively have a C6 engine.

Drag Force
Procedure: The materials for the experiment are as follows: wind tunnel, 34.9 gram model rocket, and digital wind speed gauge, string to suspend rocket, notes, and paper. The rocket was then inserted into the chamber of the wind tunnel suspended by two strings as to support the rocket better. The wind tunnel contained honeycomb structures in front and in back of the rocket to create a stream of laminar airflow. Laminar airflow is smooth flow as contrasted with turbulent airflow. The machine was then switched on to push the rocket. Before insertion, the rocket was precisely weighed at 34.5 grams, then converted to standard physics units at .035 kilograms. The wind speed of the wind tunnel was measured by the digital wind speed gauge set at meters per second. The velocity of wind was 38 meters per second. The rockets attached strings were observably at an approximate 20 degree angle. Of course because of human error, 20 degrees is quite the rough estimate and should not be treated as an absolutely exact value as well as the uncertainty of many other factors. The rocket had the tendency to stick to the wall of the chamber which could have been fixed by suspending more strings to the rocket. Obviously, more strings would have made the math a little bit more difficult. I then calculated drag force and additionally calculated drag coefficient. Derivation and calculation of Drag Force: Start with Newtons Second law. Find the components in the x direction which is amounted to Tcos (theta) =mg. Solve for T. Do the same for the y direction with an equation of Fd Tsin (theta) = mg. Substitute T in the equation for y direction with mg/cos (theta). Solve for Fd with a final equation of Fd = mgsin (theta) / 2cos (theta). The drag force equals .06 newtons.

Calculation of Drag Coefficient: Observe Fd = kdv^2. Solve for kd. Drag coefficient equals 4 x 10^-5.

Numerical Model
Procedure: The materials are as follows: computer, rocket height prediction spreadsheet, and calculator (TI-84 plus), notes, and pencil. The rocket height prediction spreadsheet spread sheet was downloaded. The average thrust was inputted into the spread sheet for the C6 engine. The mass of the white rocket with the C6 engine was then calculated and then the predicted height could be observed. Following the white rocket was the calculation of the blue rocket with the C6 engine and then succeeding that would be the calculation of the prediction of the highest altitude it reached. The drag coefficient was the same for both rockets in the observation even though they do indeed have different drag coefficients, but because the data only permits one significant digit, the coefficient was kept at .0002. Originally it would have been .000167 according to the calculations, but accuracy of that caliber cannot be guaranteed. The total mass of the white rocket with the B6 engine was measured to be .087 kilograms. The B6 engine thrust data was inputted and calculated in the spreadsheet. The highest altitude was approximately 326.86 meters. Then the mass of the blue rocket with B6 engine was calculated and conclusively revealed a highest height of 162.09. The four combinations were then calculated without the factor of drag force, or force of air resistance.

Aspects worth Noting: According to the data for no air resistance, the heights were astronomically higher than their actual counterparts, so it is worth mentioning the significance of error that could probably occur if air resistance were not taken into account. Ex. White rocket with C6 engine (no drag force) had an ultimate altitude of 369.89.

Predictions for Maximum Heights with air resistance:

1. 2. 3. 4. White rocket with C6 engine = 238.56 meters White rocket with B6 engine = 91.30 meters Blue rocket with C6 engine = 326.86 meters Blue rocket with B6 engine = 162.09 meters

Predictions for Maximum Heights without air resistance:

1. 2. 3. 4. White rocket with C6 engine = 369.89 meters White rocket with B6 engine = 108.15 meters Blue rocket with C6 engine = 783 meters Blue rocket with B6 engine = 263.53 meters

Drag Coefficient for rockets (1 significant digit) = .0002

Flight Results
The rocket was then officially launched in a field. The white rocket with the C6 engine and the blue rocket with the same were launched. Three people were used to measure the angle of the rocket, with a sextant, to get accurate measurements. Unfortunately, the rocket was blown greatly off course, most likely due to the wind speed at the time. Taking the average of the three sets of data would be illogical. One person measured above 90 degrees. This presented a problem. A guess was made as to how far one person was from another to calculate the height. The guess was 100 meters. The usage of triangles and trigonometry were required, specifically right triangles and tangent of an angle. The actual measurements, as a result, were more inaccurate than the predictions. Predictions for the white rocket with the C6 engine were 238 meters while the blue rocket was predicted at 324 meters. The results for the white rocket were calculated to be 134 meters and the blue rocket had a conclusive height of 157 meters. The final measurements can obviously not be trusted when compared to the predictions. Wind speed was most likely the primary contributing factor to the rockets curved trajectory.

Conclusion
The predicted results are as follows: White rocket with C6 engine had a maximum altitude of 238.56 meters, and the Blue rocket with the C6 engine had a maximum altitude of 326.86 meters. The actual measurements are as follows: White rocket with the C6 engine had a measured altitude of 134.5 meters, and the blue rocket with the C6 engine had a measured altitude of 157.5 meters. Comparing the predictions to the final measurements, there was clearly an error as the actual measurements are illogical. It turns out that the predictions were far more accurate than the final measurements. The primary problem to this data fallacy can be attributed to the wind speed as both rockets traveled with a severely curved trajectory with the wind. Selecting a day with very little wind would probably solve this problem. The predictions were fairly accurate, but securing the rocket for the thrust analysis would have to be instilled if this project were to be repeated in order to get more confident results, although this didnt affect the predicted results too badly.

Reflection
This project has greatly increased my understanding of how physics applies to the real world. I was told at the beginning of the year that physics was merely applied science and math attempting to comprehend the nature of the universe. This rocket project had me go through the experiment, the calculations, the experimental process, creating predictions, and so on. It allowed me to get somewhat of an idea what real scientists do. It definitely was an accomplishment worth noting as it didnt simply deal with concepts or theory, but rather application and the real world. This also helped me academically as I had to apply my knowledge of kinematics and dynamics to successfully see the project through. This project was an ideal way for me to apply the knowledge I have gained in the last 5 months of my physics class in a very intuitive, hands on approach.