Rocket Lab Report

Anthony Giorgio

Academy for Math, Engineering & Science

A4 Doug Hendricks Honors Physics

19 December, 2017
 Giorgio 1

Abstract

The purpose of this lab was to apply concepts learned in Honors Physics curriculum, particularly
dynamics and kinematics, in relation to rocket science. These concepts were applied by
experimenting on consumer-grade rockets, predicting the maximum height and testing said
rockets to measure the actual height.

Rocket Engine Predicted Height Calculated Height

Gold/Black
A8 28 m 30 m

Gold/Black
C6 180 m 170 m

Gold/Black
B6 72 m 80 m

Red/Silver
B6 74 m 60 m

Red/Silver
C6 182 m 120 m

Red/Yellow
A8 66 m 60 m

Introduction

This lab was designed to apply concepts learned in the “Kinematics” and “Dynamics” sections of
an Honors Physics Curriculum. Kinematics is the mathematical study of movement, involving
position, velocity, and acceleration of objects. Dynamics is mathematically similar to
Kinematics, but with emphasis on the study of forces applied to an object, and how those forces
affect position, velocity, and acceleration of objects. In this lab, there was a special emphasis on
impulse and momentum, impulse being defined as the change in momentum, such that
momentum is the product of mass and velocity, and impulse, ​I​, is equal to ​F∆t ​= ​m∆v​. In
addition, a significant portion of the lab was focused on a basic understanding of Air Resistance,
with Drag Force being the force opposing motion due to friction from air. To do this, an equation
was derived, very similar to equations for friction, using a “drag coefficient”, or ​k​d,​ as a modifier
on ​v2​ ​ such that ​F​d​ ​= ​k​dv​ 2​ ​, and velocity is reduced by the coefficient, just as velocity is reduced by
kinetic friction.

Consumer grade rockets were used with A, B, and C engines. Standard Motor Codes for
consumer-grade rockets are to be read along the following guidelines: X#-#, with X being the
 Giorgio 2

first letter, classifying the average impulse of the engine, the second number specifying average
thrust, and the second number providing the amount of time between the end of firing and the
ejection of the parachute. A8-2, for example, would have an average impulse of 2 Ns, an average
thrust of 8 N, with 2 seconds of delay between firing and parachute ejection. A C6 and C4 engine
would have the same impulse, but a C6 would have an impulse of 10 Ns, fire an average of 6 N
for about 2 seconds, and a C4 would fire an average of 4 N for roughly 3 seconds.

Measured impulses of the rockets were manipulated using the Impulse-Momentum theorem,
which states that, since impulse equals change in momentum, ​∆p​, and can also be found by
multiplying force and time, such that ​F∆t ​= ​∆p​. Momentum can be found by multiplying mass
and velocity, so to find the change in momentum where mass is constant, ​∆p ​= ​m∆v. ​In order to
find the ​v​f,​ the equation ​F∆t ​= ​m∆v ​was solved for ​∆v​(being equal to ​v​f -​ ​v​0), ​ such that
​v​f -​ ​v​0 =
​ (​F∆t​)/​m​. It is simple to solve this equation for ​v​f​ ​= (​F∆t​)/​m + v​0​ ​.

Finally, in order to find the height, numerical iteration of the data had to be utilised. It would be
nearly impossible to plug all of the data into an algebraic equation in such a way that the height
could be determined. Rather, the measured thrust data was used to find the impulse, which was
in turn derived to find the velocity, as shown above, which was then used to derive the height:
d ​= ​rt ​becoming ​h ​= ​vt​. The calculations were programmed into a spreadsheet, as explained in the
Numerical Analysis section of this report.

Thrust Analysis

Experimental Design​:

First, thrust measurements had to be taken. This was done by blindly selecting a rocket engine,
measuring the force of its stationary firing with a force gauge, and then cross-referencing it
against rocket engine classifications to determine which engine it was.

To take these measurements, a rocket engine of unknown classification was fastened into a small
box-and-cart device on a track. Placed directly in front of this device was a digital force gauge
which recorded pulling forces in the positive and pushing forces in the negative. The cart device
was strapped to the track in such a way that linear motion would be unhindered, but it would be
unable to fly off of the track. The rocket was ignited using a battery connected to a standard
phosphorous-coated igniter wire that comes with commercial-grade rockets. This setup is
depicted in figure 2-a, on page 3.

Data was collected using a program called “Logger Pro”, at a rate of 10 times per second for 10
seconds, with the program beginning data collection on trigger mode––i.e., the program would
chart data as soon as the force gauge detected a pushing force greater than 1 N, or a 1 N force in
the negative direction. This was done so for the sake of accuracy, as the alternative would have
been human trial-and-error attempting to synchronise data collection with the exact beginning
 Giorgio 3

and end of the firing of the rocket, which would likely have lead to an incomplete data set.
However, in order to accurately set a trigger, the force gauge had to be zeroed, so that it did not
account for the normal force of the resting cart device against the sensor. The relevant collected
data, which was used to calculate the average impulse of the rocket, can be found at the end of in
figure 3-a, as well as the graph of the results in figure 3-b. Using this graph, the average impulse
was calculated by finding the area of right-endpoint rectangles at each of the points listed on the
graph. Essentially, taking the data in figure 3-a, the ​F​ values were multiplied by the 0.1 s time
intervals and added together for a result of 8.84 Ns, which meant, over 2.1 s total, an average
thrust force of 4.21 N. This would be consistent with a C4-6 engine, but it was revealed that the
engine was actually a C6-5. This error likely arose in measurement, as it was discovered after the
fact that the rocket had been inserted into the cart on a slight angle.

Figures, Measurements & Graph​:

figure 3-a

t ​in seconds F ​in Newtons t ​in seconds F ​in Newtons

0.0 .19 1.9 4.17

0.1 7.06 2.0 1.58

 Giorgio 4

0.2 9.00 2.1 0.43

0.3 4.98 2.2 0.25

0.4 4.68 2.3 0.34

0.5 4.41 2.4 0.34

0.6 4.35 2.5 0.31

0.7 4.2 2.6 0.28

0.8 4.2 2.7 0.34

0.9 3.9 2.8 0.25

1.0 4.02 2.9 0.28

1.1 3.84 3.0 0.19

1.2 4.02 3.1 0.25

1.3 3.81 3.2 0.19

1.4 3.84 3.3 0.28

1.5 4.05 3.4 0.34

1.6 3.81 3.5 0.25

1.7 3.96 3.6 0.25

1.8 4.02 3.7 0.31

 Giorgio 5

figure 4-b

Drag Force

Purpose​:

In order to collect data for a Rocket Launch lab, an experiment was conducted in which a
commercial-grade rocket body was placed in a wind tunnel in order to determine the drag
coefficient on the rocket. The drag coefficient must be determined before the height of any
launched rocket may be calculated, because rockets travel at high enough speeds that air
resistance becomes a major factor in such calculations.

Experiment and Calculations

The amount of air resistance on any given object can be determined based on the object’s
velocity, surface area, the density of the air it travels through, and the shape of the object. The
relationship which was explored in this lab was that of the force of air resistance, ​F​, in relation to
 Giorgio 6

the velocity, ​v​, of the object. The faster an object goes, the greater force is exerted on it due to air
resistance, and it so happens that the relationship between force and velocity is ​F ​∝ v2​ ​, or ​F =
k​dv​ 2​ ​, where ​k​d​ is the proportionality constant of drag, i.e., the drag coefficient.

In order to calculate the force exerted on the rocket, ​k​d​ had to be calculated first. Beginning with
the free-body diagram in figure 6-a, an equation was derived to isolate and find the value of ​k​d.​

The rocket, which weighed 61g, was placed in the wind tunnel on a string attached to the top of
the tunnel, as depicted in figure 7-a, below. Behind the string was a protractor, that it could be
observed what angle the string made against the vertical when the wind tunnel was turned on.
Once the rocket was subjected to the moving air in the wind tunnel, the velocity of which was 32
m/s, conditions were such that the angle of the string could be measured, and the ​k​d​ ​calculated
with the derived equation in figure 7-b. The angle measurements were read off the protractor by
three volunteers, so as to hopefully improve the accuracy of an imprecise measuring tool. These
measured values and the calculations for ​kd​ ​ ​and ​F​ can be found in figure 7-b. With the angle
being roughly 23​º, the mass of the rocket being 61g, and the wind tunnel velocity being 32 m/s,
the ​F​d​ ​was calculated as 0.25 N and the ​k​d​ ​was, therefore, 0.00024. Due to imprecision of
measurements, this figure was simplified and rounded to 0.0003 for the purpose of predicting
height.
 Giorgio 7

Additional Information Regarding Air Resistance

The wind tunnel is designed in a specific way as to avoid turbulent airflow. Turbulence is airflow
that is uneven and not all travelling in the same direction, or in the same pattern of movement. A
fan is necessary to create air movement, but the air blown from fans is incredibly turbulent, so it
is placed in such a way that the fan blows away from the chamber where the rocket is housed,
thus drawing air in through the chamber. The honeycomb lattice structures depicted on either
side of the main chamber are additionally in place to prevent turbulent airflow. It does this by
guiding the air flow through each of the small tubes in the lattice, so that the distribution of air
flow is even and the direction is constant, as well as perfectly horizontal. This being the case, it
 Giorgio 8

can be assumed that anything in the chamber which is vertical is therefore perpendicular to the
airflow, and all things horizontal are therefore parallel.

Rockets, like the one used in the experiment, have the shape they do because it minimizes air
resistance. Shape is very important to airflow, and shapes that minimise air resistance can be
called aerodynamic. The least aerodynamic design would be a flat plane, perpendicular to the
direction of airflow, or a cube. To minimise air resistance, the corners would be rounded at the
very least, or the faces could be rounded to make a sphere. Even then, the most aerodynamic
shape would be that which comes closest to parallel to the direction of airflow, so this sphere
could be lengthened into an ellipsoid, and one point on the ellipsoid could be lengthened further
to create a rounded cone: the very shape observed at the tip of the rocket, guiding the airflow to
meet the walls of the shaft, which are exactly parallel to airflow.

Estimates for Other Rockets​:

Other rockets were to be launched that were too big to fit in the wind tunnel, and thus could not
be tested. In order to estimate their ​k​d,​ a ping pong ball was placed in the wind tunnel. This is
because, though the ping pong ball bears no resemblance to a rocket, it is useful. The most
important quality is that its diameter was similar to the diameter of the larger rockets in question.
Otherwise, its shape and size mitigated each other to provide a better model for the rockets, i.e.,
since it was round instead of cone shaped, the ball would have a greater coefficient of drag, but
because it is smaller, it does not experience the drag that the rocket would experience on its
shaft, so in this regard, it would have a greater coefficient of drag––thus, the two factors mitigate
each other. Through similar calculations, with the angle of the ping pong ball at 23º in a wind
tunnel with velocity 12 m/s, and a mass of 0.0023 kg, the ​F​d​ ​was calculated to be 0.0737 N, the
k​d,​ in turn was roughly 0.0005.

Numerical Analysis
 Giorgio 9

Calculations​:

Certain calculations were performed to theorize the maximum height of three rockets, the
Red/Silver, Red/Yellow, and Gold/Black rockets belonging to Doug Hendricks. As mentioned in
the introduction, the method of numerical iteration was used, building calculations on top of one
another in order to find the height, since trying to combine all of the calculations into one simple,
elegant mathematical expression would have resulted in something neither simple nor elegant.
Knowing the mass of each of the rockets, and knowing the measured thrust of three engines, the
A8, B6 and C6 engines at every 0.1 second interval, the maximum height was determined with a
spreadsheet comprising the following calculations, in relation to the free-body diagram depicted
in figure 8-a:

● Thrust - Thrust was measured as a function of time, with measurements taken every 0.1
seconds

● Average Thrust - Average Thrust was calculated by finding the average of the measured
thrust at the measured time and the measured thrust of the interval before, such that
(​Thr​n-1 +
​ ​Thr​n)/2
​

● Drag Force - Drag Force was calculated as a function of velocity. Drag Force, or ​F​d​, is
proportional to velocity squared, such that ​F​d​ ​=​ k​d​v2​ ​, as ​k​d​ ​equals the coefficient of drag,
in this case measured as 0.003 N

● Average Net Force - Net Force was calculated based on the free body diagram shown in
figure 1-a, with gravity and Drag Force opposing Thrust, such that ​F​net​ ​= ​Thr​avg​ ​- ​mg ​- ​F​d

● Average Net Impulse - Impulse equals ​F∆t​, and to find the Average Net Impulse, the
Average Net Force and the change in time were used, such that ​P​net​ ​= ​F​net​∆t

● Initial Velocity - Initial Velocity was the Final Velocity of the preceding time interval,
with the ​v​0​ ​= 0.00 at ​t ​= 0.00

● Final Velocity - Final Velocity was calculated through a manipulation of Impulse. ​P ​=

F​∆​t​ = ​mv​, so to find the change in velocity, ​v ​was isolated such that ​v ​= ​F​∆​t/m​, and
adding the ​v0​ ​ ​to achieve ​vf​ ​ ​= ​F​∆​t/m

● Average Velocity - Average Velocity was found with the average of Final and Initial
Velocity, such that ​v​avg​ ​= (​v​0 +
​ ​v​f)/2
​

● Final Height - Final Height was found considering ​d ​= ​rt​, replacing rate with velocity,
distance with height, and time replaced, added to the initial height, i.e., the Final Height
of the preceding interval, beginning at ​t​ = 0.00, ​h ​= 0.00, such that ​h​f​ ​= ​h​0 +
​ ​v​avg∆​
​ t
 Giorgio 10

Findings​:

From the predictions, the maximum height, ​h​, was found as a function of time, ​t​, with an
important value,​ t​d,​ being the difference in time between when the rocket stopped firing and
reached its maximum height. The ​td​ ​ ​is important because, the engines have a delay system which,
for the C6-5 engines, releases the parachute 5 seconds after it stops firing––if the rocket ejects its
parachute before it reaches maximum height, it will sabotage the validity of the predictions. It
should also be noted that maximum height was found by observing where on the spreadsheet the
height stopped increasing and started decreasing.

Red/Silver Red/Yello
w

t​ (seconds) h ​(meters) t​d (seconds)

​ t​ (seconds) h ​(meters) t​d​ (seconds)

A8 2.8 31.14 2.1 3.7 64.65 3.0

B6 4.3 84.06 3.4 5.0 134.77 4.1

C6 6.9 225.54 4.9 6.9 282.34 4.9

Gold/Black

t​ (seconds) h ​(meters) t​d​ ​(seconds)

A8 2.6 28.19 1.9

B6 3.9 71.91 3.0

C6 6.0 179.31 2.0

Notes on Air Resistance​:

Though the figures calculated for the coefficient of drag, 0.0003 and 0.0005, may seem
insignificant, it is in the process of numerical iteration that it becomes apparent how significant
these small numbers are. Since the ​F​d​ ​is proportional to the ​v2​ ​ rather than just ​v​, the air resistance
increases at a much greater rate when the rocket travels faster, and small changes in the ​k​d
 Giorgio 11

constant can make for a staggering change at high speeds. For example, with a ​k​d​ ​of 0.0005 for
the Gold/Black rocket with a C6 engine, the rocket was predicted to travel up to approximately
180 m after 6 seconds, this being its maximum height. If the ​kd​ ​ ​is lowered by 0.00005, the rocket
will have a maximum height of roughly 188 m after 6.1 seconds. If the ​kd​ ​ ​is raised by the same
amount, the rocket’s maximum height will only be 172 m after 5.8 seconds; the manipulation of
the ​k​d​ by only 0.00005 in either direction causes a change of 8 meters in prediction. This effect is
much more astonishing when air resistance is neglected entirely. Though 0.0005 would seem to
the casual observer to be close enough to zero that it may be negligible, when this tiny number is
rounded to 0.00, the maximum height of this rocket is calculated to be 414 m after 10.1 seconds.
A segment of the spreadsheet used for numerical iteration is attached at the end of this report.
For clarity, the maximum predicted height and the final firing of the engine are marked in red.
The difference a change in ​kd​ ​ value can make are demonstrated in these excerpts from the
spreadsheet, included below.

Flight Results

Preparation & Firing​:

The rockets were stuffed with fire-resistant wadding to avoid catching the parachute on fire,
which not only would have prevented a controlled descent, but also have likely ruined the testing
rocket. Then, a rocket engine, A8, B6, or C6, was selected and inserted in the rocket from the
bottom, followed by an igniter, and a small plug to keep everything in place. The rocket was
placed on the launch pad with a vertical rod next to it, to orient it properly during the initial
firing. The igniter wire was then connected to a 12-volt battery via alligator clamps. The battery
was turned on long enough to ignite the engine and quickly switched off.
 Giorgio 12

Measurements​:

Measurements were taken from three points, equidistant from the launch pad and at 120º
intervals, such that one observer was at 180º due South so that he could face away from the sun,
one observer was stationed at 300º North West and another was stationed at 60º North East, so
that neither of them was staring directly at the sun. Measurements were taken from three separate
locations to 1) mitigate for measurement error, and 2) compensate for a launch path that wasn’t
perfectly straight. The difficulty with measuring the height with the naked eye is that some of the
rockets would go very high, and it was difficult to see them at their maximum height.
Measurements were taken a bit imprecisely, using either a professional or homemade
clinometers––the homemade ones consisting of a protractor with a string attached at the center
mark, with a weight on the other end, and a straw attached to the base of the protractor, with
which to sight the rocket(depicted in figure 10-a). 90º, being the angle the string hung at when
the rocket was at eye level with the measurers, was subtracted from the measured angle.

Calculations​:

Using the three height measurements taken during each launch, the measured angles were
averaged to approximate a more accurate height. The height was calculated based on the right
angle depicted in figure 11-a.
 Giorgio 13

The formula was derived from this triangle to be 50sinϴ+1.5, accounting for distance from the
launch, as well as the height of the measurers. For example, the Gold Black Rocket with a C
engine could be calculated using 50sin(73º) + 1.5, which would equal 49.3 m, or 50 m for the
purposes of the experiment.

Results​:

Rocket Engine Measured Average Angle Calculated

Angles Height

Gold/Black A8 26º 31º 25º 27​º 27 m

Gold/Black C6 70º 80º 69º 73​º 170 m

Gold/Black B6 64º 65º 44º 58​º 80 m

Red/Silver B6 50º 66º 34º 50​º 61 m

Red/Silver C6 69º 79º 55º 68​º 123 m

Red/Yellow A8 48º 58º 41º 49​º 59 m

 Giorgio 14

Notes on Alterations to Predictive Data​:

In the drag force lab, the ​k​d​ ​was predicted to be 0.0003 for the smaller rockets, the Red/Yellow
and Red/Silver, and 0.0005 for the larger Gold/Black rocket, and the results of this are reflected
in the tables in that section. However, upon examination of the calculations, the heights for the
smaller rockets did not seem to be accurate predictions of the actual measured heights of those
rockets. While this could have been measurement error, it seemed to be an error in methodology:
the ​kd​ ​was derived by finding the force of drag at a wind velocity of 32 m/s, but for much of the
rocket’s flight, it was predicted to go much faster. By manipulating the spreadsheet, it was
discovered that the ​k​d​ ​of 0.0005 actually lead to consistently more accurate predictions of
maximum height. So, although the predicted data which is included in the comparative tables is
not wholly representative of the predictions originally made, these measurements of the ​k​d,​​ ​as
derived from the data gathered from the launched rockets, are a much more viable source for
experimental data. As such, this is the value that was included in the “predictive” calculations, in
the interest of a more consistent modelling procedure.

Conclusion

Rocket Engine Predicted Height Calculated Height

Gold/Black A8 28 m 30 m

Gold/Black C6 180 m 170 m

Gold/Black B6 72 m 80 m

Red/Silver B6 74 m 60 m

Red/Silver C6 182 m 120 m

Red/Yellow A8 66 m 60 m
 Giorgio 15

The cells marked as green in this table were observed, in flight, to go nearly straight up, whereas
the yellow cells were launches that were noticeably crooked, which may account for
discrepancies between the predictions and the height which was observed and calculated. As
mentioned before, the predictions in the table are based on a modified ​k​d,​ different from the
original predictions, because it more accurately predicted the heights, with one exception. The
Red/Silver rocket with a C6 engine curved the most in flight, leading to a calculated height much
lower than its predicted, which is only reasonable.

Many things aspects of the experimental procedure could have been altered to produce better
results. For one, rather than measuring the height of the rockets with a rudimentary sextant and
the imprecise human eye, the height of the rocket over the entire flight might have been
measured with an altimeter. Not only would that have given far more precise results for the
maximum height, it would have given more data throughout the height that could be compared
with the predictive data. In addition, more tests could have been run to find the coefficients of
drag on each of the rockets launched, with a variable wind velocity to find values more
predictive of the rockets in flight. Ideally, more flights with each rocket and each engine would
have been conducted and replicated, for more consistent and valid, replicated data.

Reflection

It seems to me that the best way to learn a lot and learn it quickly, is to do something that seems
a bit beyond your own reach. I never would have considered writing a 4-lab, almost 20 page
scientific report in my free time, because I don’t think of myself as much of a scientist, and this
would have seemed a rather significant and unapproachable undertaking. But, as with the other
significant and daunting artistic experiments I’ve undertaken, the only way this report was to be
done was to do it one small piece at a time, and acquire the necessary knowledge to do it along
the way. On that note, this report taught me that I need to do more double-checking and quality
assessments along the way, because if I let small things fester until the final quality check, then
the necessary adjustments to fix those mistakes set me significantly behind.

As far as the actual writing of this report goes, I must honestly say that I discovered I ​detest
writing in the third-person passive voice, and as a whole it made writing the report less
enjoyable, but it was certainly good practice and a good challenge. The thing I found most
difficult, though, was the fractured nature of the lab. In this, I see the scientist in me reveal
himself a bit, because I was frustrated by many of our imprecise tactics, retroactive edits, and
changed plans from lab to lab. I admit, this is a very negative sounding review of the experience,
but it made me really appreciate the pains it takes to conduct good science, and the value of
consistent data. Having done this lab with all of its imperfections, it made me want to design a
better experiment for the same question––I’d want to conduct the experiment with all of the
changes I mentioned in the conclusion, the altimeter and wind tunnel, etc.
 Giorgio 16

As difficult as the report was for me, the labs themselves were actually very fun, and mitigated
the displeasure of writing the report. I look forward to more labs that are this fun, with a more
informal write-up attached: that sounds more my speed.