Summary Clay, Ruby, Jocelyn, Will

Jocelyn:
1 Description of rockets include justification of your design 3-5 each rocket
4 State question answerable and measurable 1-2
2 Pictures of test15 Hypothesis written properly
Clay 6,11,12,13,14
Ruby 3,7, 8,9,10

1. Leaky- our first rocket was a 2 liter Smart Water bottles rocket. This rocket did leak
quite a bit. The rocket still shot though and pretty far for only going to 25psi. The
bottle had a crooked side to it that we balanced out by making one of the sides
heavier. The cone fit the rocket well with a cut folder inside and paperboard. The fins
on both rockets were the same size. Whale- was the single two liter bottle with the
same material for the nose cone and fins, just fit to the rockets size.
2. (Pictures above)
3. We chose our variable, diameter, for a few reasons. First of all, we wanted
something that would be a bit more of a challenge to control. We also wanted
something that would have to include at least two rockets. For these reasons, we
chose to use diameter as our variable.
4. Our question was Does size affect the height of the rocket. We could easily
measure the height of our rocket by creating two different rockets but the same
diameter.
5. Our hypothesis was written correctly because it was an if then, because statement.
Also it had all of the criteria it needed.
6. When testing our variable (diameter) we had to keep everything the same except for
the diameter. We would launch the rockets and record the height. We did this very
many times so we could get very accurate data. We had rube stand 10 meters away
from the launch module and measure the rocket at its peak.
7.
Variables We Kept Constant:
Fins

All were the same size and shape.

Pressure

25 PSI (Leakys max.)

Amount of water

350 mL

Weight

Around 132 grams each

Litre size

2 liters

8.
The one variable that we tried to keep constant but couldnt was nose cone size.
This was hard because one size would be too big for the other rocket, and the other would
be too small. In the end, we just fitted the cone to each rocket individually rather than having
the same sized cone. However, we could have found a middle size.
9.
Rocket/Test Indpt. Variable
(Diameter)

Angle of
Elevation

Distance From
Launcher

Hang
Time

Height

R1/T1

11 cm

55

10 Meters

n/a

15.55
m

R2/T1

6.6 cm

54

10 Meters

n/a

13.7 m

R1/T2

11 cm

42

10 Meters

n/a

17.1 m

R2/T2

6.6 cm

32

10 Meters

n/a

11.9 m

R1/T3

11 cm

61

19 Meters

n/a

18 m

R2/T3

6.6 cm

53

19 Meters

n/a

13 m

10.
We collected our data by finding the height. We did multiple tests to get consistent
results.
11.
(See graph below)
12.
(See graph below)
13.
(See graph below)
14.
(See graph below)

ConclusionIn conclusion, we found our hypothesis to be incorrect. Our hypothesis states that if
diameter affects height, then a smaller diameter will go higher because it is more
aerodynamic
This was incorrect because in order to keep our volume constant, we had to merge two
bottles together. This caused a leak in our rocket. Also, it was bent towards one side. this
created a flaw in our testing. Furthermore, we needed another point on own graph. our last
rocket that was built wasnt able to get off the launch pad because of a major leak. For the
most part we had a very successful study between the different sized rockets.