Reflection (50pts) (one paragraph each)

● What challenges did you encounter in this project and how did you navigate
those challenges?

There were many challenges that we encountered throughout the course of this
project. These challenges were met and managed without much difficulty, leading to our
ultimately successful rocket. These issues included our splice, our rocket breaking, our
nose cone, parachute deployment, and the inefficiency of our fins.
The first issue we confronted was the innate risk of splicing. Splicing is the
process of combining multiple bottles, utilizing PL premium adhesive and plastic
soda/water bottles in construction. The foremost reason for splicing was the increased
volume of the pressure chamber that followed the combination of multiple bottles. This
strategy was risky because of small amounts of human error that could occur while
gluing bottles. If the seal isn’t fully established or present during a launch, the rocket
could explode or lose pressure through the small gaps and breaks. We believed our
rocket’s splice succeeded on the first day of construction, but on the second day, we
found a bend in the plastic lip of the splice, compromising the whole rocket. My
groupmate(Maddie Tharp) and I took it upon ourselves to reconstruct the splice, pulling
it apart and re-gluing it. On this second attempt our splice held and there was no
recurring warp.
The second challenge that we faced was our primary rocket crashing and
becoming damaged. This occurred on two different occasions, the first being near the
beginning of the project, on our first test run. We had previously decided to incorporate
a dowel embedded in the top of the rocket to aid in keeping our nose cone on. This
became a huge mistake for our group when our nose cone stayed in place for too long,
the rocket nose-dived, and the parachute didn’t deploy. When the top of the rocket hit
the ground, the dowel collapsed backward and sunk the rocket’s head in on itself. We
thought this was the end of the Atheist (the name we assigned our rocket) when we
surveyed the damage, but the majority of the wounds were superficial and easy to
repair. When the second crash occurred, it was far more devastating, leading to intense
cracking and the leaking of our pressure chamber. After our last encounter with disaster,
we had decided to remove a large portion of the dowel, which had been the main device
in our failure, hoping it would lead to a less risky flight. If we removed the dowel, there
would be nothing solid in the nose cone to break the top of the pressure chamber, which
was our main fear. We removed a few centimeters of it but left a few there to anchor our
parachute. We launched this rocket again and it again nose-dived, hitting the ground at
momentous speeds. The nose cone collapsed in on itself and the diminished dowel
collapsed back into the top of the pressure chamber. Confirming our worst fear, we
found a large crack running along our rocket after pressure testing it, thus it was unable
to hold pressure.
 The third difficulty we experienced involved how well our nose cone could detach
from our rocket. Our group decided to experiment with a loose-fitting nose cone, hoping
it would fall off once the rocket began its descent. Our hopes were ill-advised as the
nose cone did not dislodge itself from our projectile, resulting in an unfortunate nose
dive, leading to the aforementioned maleficence. This was caused by our decision to
utilize a nose cone that fit too tightly to our rocket’s pressure chamber. To combat this
issue, we built a more loose-fitting cone. This didn’t work either and fell off our rocket
before the launch. Our primary rocket’s nose cone ultimately didn’t perform, but our
secondary rocket functioned well during testing and was used in its stead. Though this
secondary rocket worked beautifully during testing, the nose cone failed to fall away in
exhibition. This may have been due to the increased velocity of the rocket which is
related to the increased pressure used at the exhibition. Meaning the rocket moved
faster in the upward direction because of the increase in fuel.
The fourth difficulty we had to overcome was our parachute deployment. Time
and time again, our rocket’s parachute continued to fail. During the entire course of
testing and the exhibition, our parachute deployed only once and even then failed to
fully unfurl. We were never able to fully combat this problem and it led to our rocket’s
disqualification from the height competition at the exhibition.
The final problem we had to conquer was the inefficiencies of our fins. My
groupmate and I decided to design our fins to be large, over half of the rocket's size.
This had some major drawbacks relating to the path of the rocket’s flight. The
substantial size of our fins helped our rocket to fly straighter than many of our peers, but
also forced it to turn over. This turnover had our rocket aim towards the ground with the
nose cone in front, instead of falling with it in front which would have taken the nose
cone off, deploying the parachute. The majority of our issues could be derived from the
shape and size of our fins.

● What were your successes in this project and how could you relay those
successes to next year’s sophomores?

Though Maddie and I experienced many failures and challenges, we succeeded

in a multitude of ways as well. Our successes include the fact that we were able to beat
the Animas record three times using a surprisingly powerful rocket, our fins were able to
keep our rocket straight, our splicing functioned, and our group worked as a cohesive
and communicating unit.
The first success was the repeated record-breaking. The first launch we
completed with our primary rocket achieved 240ft, breaking the previous Animas High
School record. After this, another group stepped forward and produced a rocket that
obtained a higher altitude than ours. To combat this we worked to upgrade our rocket,
producing something that seemed lighter and capable. The little hope we had at
defeating this new record with our upgraded rocket fell apart as we underperformed in
regards to our last launch, reaching only 239ft. Ultimately, our primary rocket couldn’t
achieve any altitude higher than 240. We then thought of launching our
secondary/backup rocket, which had little engineering applied. It was surprising to
everyone when the backup rocket flew 359ft, breaking the new record. During the
exhibition, we utilized our secondary rocket because of its greater record in regards to
parachute deployment and because it broke the previous school record. The secondary
rocket's ability to fly over 300ft wasn’t a fluke and when we launched it at the exhibition
it flew 367ft, beating our past set record.
The second success we had was our fins. In the previous paragraph, I detailed
how our fins were inefficient and conducted our rocket to nose dive, but there was a
multitude of benefits to them. The monumental size of our fins aided in the rocket’s
ability to fly straight, helping it reach a higher altitude than any other rocket. The fins
accounted for our rockets' enhanced stabilization.
The third success on our part was the fact that the rocket’s splice did not break,
which would have resulted in a leaking pressure chamber and launch failure. Near the
beginning of the project, we decided to use a spliced rocket, hoping for more volume
and thus thrust. After our first splice became compromised, we tried our luck again,
aiming for a more stable and suitable splice. This paid off and our rocket’s second splice
materialized perfectly; it was able to hold the rocket together while taking on massive
amounts of pressure. This extra volume allowed us to beat the original Animas record
and gave us the confidence to experiment with more elaborate rocket designs, though
none turned out as extravagant as some of our peers. Many of the other students in
class attempted splices, hoping for the same result. A portion of these attempts failed.
For example, Joe and Brayden spliced on their first rocket, but when they tested it, they
found it to be faulty, causing it to leak pressure and launch unsuccessfully. We were
able to avoid this fully until our rocket crashed and cracked. Throughout the entire
project, our splice held something that I see as a great success. I would recommend
next year’s sophomore class to try a splice but always have a backup rocket. It came in
handy when our primary rocket failed.
The fourth success we had was our group's ability to work together cohesively.
When we were allowed to choose our groupmate for this project, I chose Maddie. We
are good friends so we were able to work together nicely. Throughout the course of the
entire project, we communicated well and managed to build a working rocket together.
This was one of my greatest accomplishments during the project. I don’t believe either
of us felt that we were unheard or underappreciated, resulting in healthy cooperation
and group work. Because we worked so well together, we were able to rely on each
other's ideas and build off of them, giving us a broader spectrum of designs to work
with. If we had worked together less seamlessly, we would have fallen apart, and would
never have been able to build what we did.
Overall, I would tell the sophomore class to prepare and research ahead of time
the many intricacies of rocket construction. There were so many factors I wish I had
learned more about, and I wish I had planned each section of our rocket more
thoroughly. It would have been advantageous to look into different aspects of fin design
or parachute deployment. We could have used this knowledge to win the contest. I
would be interested in coming in next year and aiding our fellow students in
construction, maybe a mentorship with next year’s sophomores and our class could be
beneficial. We could each relay our information and learning to the next generation. We
could each pair up with a group or two.

● What was a turning point for you in this project and why?

There were many points in this project that could be defined as “turning points,”
but the key decisive moment for my group was the point at which our primary rocket
cracked and we pronounced that we would utilize our secondary rocket. Our primary
rocket, the Atheist, was a combination of two Smart Water bottles, whereas our
secondary rocket, Blast-phemy, was made of a single 2-liter soda bottle. Our decision
was bolstered by the fact that Blast-phemy demolished the previous record held,
reaching an astonishing 329ft. Our primary rocket, the one we had engineered for over
a week, was broken but still fixable. We originally wanted to use it in the exhibition, so
we gathered additional PL premium and covered the crack in it. PL premium required 5
days to dry, so we had lots of time to experiment with Blast-phemy. We launched it
multiple times during this period and found that it performed better than our primary
rocket, despite the fact that it had only a single bottle making up the pressure chamber.
The entire rocket was made solely from a bottle and a small nose cap, but this
unimpressive stature may have benefited its excellence. It didn’t have any splice, so
there was a minimal risk of it leaking pressure, and it had small fins, helping it fall in an
advantageous position. This was our main turning point because we had to decide
between the two, and that choice would determine how well we did during the
exhibition. If we had used the other rocket, maybe the cap would have deployed and we
wouldn’t have been disqualified from the competition.

● What lessons did you learn while doing this project, and how could you apply
those lessons in your future projects and life?

There were many lessons learned through the course of this project. Some of
these lessons were academic, learning about trigonometry and projectile motion, and
others were more skill-based in nature, speed of work, testing and refining, and
communication with partners.
 The first lesson I learned during this project was about trigonometry. At the
beginning of the project, we separated into two classes, one for math and the other for
physics. When we were in the math portion of this unit, we worked first on trigonometry
and then the quadratic formula. In regards to trigonometry, we learned about SOH CAH
TOA. This would eventually help us in calculating the path of our rocket. I believe I could
apply this knowledge of trigonometry to other projects in the future. I am deeply
interested in carpentry and personal work projects that might include the construction of
triangles. These skills would be instrumental in this, helping me create functioning
triangles and blueprints. The other lesson we learned in this math class was the
quadratic formula.

This formula is used to solve quadratic equations. We used it to find the

maximum flight time of our rocket. We took variables from our flight to complete this.
The second lesson we learned was about projectile motion. We learned about
trigonometry in the math section of this unit and projectile motion in the physics portion.
To gain a better understanding of how our rockets would function, we set about the task
of learning about projectiles and how they move. We first learned about displacement,
velocity, and acceleration(gravity), then moved into kinematic equations, and finally
Newton's laws. Displacement, velocity, and acceleration were quickly learned and
utilized, bringing us into the next step towards understanding projectile motion. We then
learned about kinematic equations, which can be used to find the displacement of a
projectile at any given time, the velocity of a projectile, and its acceleration. We went
through a long week of practice problems to learn these. They were mainly used to find
missing variables, such as time, initial velocity, or maybe height, that could be plugged
into other kinematic equations to find what we needed. Our final mini-unit of this project
in physics was about Newton’s laws of motion. The first of Newton’s laws states that an
object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force, or an object at
rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by another force. This means a rock resting on
the ground will not move unless it is moved by something else, like a gust of wind or an
earthquake. The second law of motion states that force equals mass * acceleration.
This means that if an object has a greater mass or acceleration, it will have a higher
force. The third law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If a
rock hits another rock, the force the rock has will be transferred into the other rock in the
opposite direction, repelling it.
The next lesson we learned throughout the course of this unit was about testing
and refinement. We utilized this lesson throughout the course of our prototype phase,
continuously refining and rebuilding our rocket. This refinement allowed us to upgrade
and make our prototype. Testing and refining something is the most advantageous
factor of the design process because it allows us to work through aspects of our
creation that may not aid our design. We took note of factors that hampered our rocket
and took them out of the equation, replacing them with new, better designs. We couldn’t
have built what we did if not for this process. An example of us refining our design can
be seen in our nose cone. Our original design had a collapsed bottom that held the top
of our pressure chamber, locking the cap on. When we launched this rocket, we found
that it was difficult for it to detach from the pressure chamber, so we decided to change
the nose cone. Our second design had an incredibly loose nose cone to offset our
previous mistake. This also didn’t succeed because the nose cone blew off the top of
the rocket, causing it to plow significantly to the side, resulting in an early parachute
deployment and crash. This gave us more data to use in construction. We took the
information, the fact that a too loose nose cone will fall off, and that a too-tight nose
cone won’t, and built a third draft. This nose cone design was made from a Smart Water
bottle top instead of a regular soda bottle top. We hoped that it would fit on the top of
our pressure chamber more efficiently and decrease any drag we might experience,
perhaps previously resulting from the larger nose cone design. We used a small plastic
ring around the bottom of it to extend its reach around the pressure chamber; this would
also keep it in place for a longer time and stabilize it throughout the duration of the flight.
Everything fit perfectly, but we were unable to test this final design, instead opting for
our secondary rocket in our final test at the exhibition.
The fourth lesson I learned in this project relates to communication and working
collaboratively with others in a group setting. My partner and I worked together well,
neither of us taking full charge or responsibility for anything in the project. In other
situations of group work, I have been forced to take charge and lead the group. This
sort of strategy creates a ladder system where one person would be in charge, taking
on the bulk of responsibility and encouraging others to work on the project. This didn’t
occur while working with Maddie on the rocket. We were able to work together
seamlessly, encouraging each other and both taking charge of the project. There was
no leader during construction, instead, we were both in charge. It was an incredibly
refreshing experience to have an equal dynamic of work and responsibility. Both of us
get distracted incredibly easily, especially me, but Maddie helped to keep me on track,
bringing me back to work on any of the numbers of things we had to do. I was able to
help Maddie as well, bringing useful ideas and information to the table and taking on a
large portion of the raw construction efforts. This healthy collaboration led to our
ultimate success. I can use this in the future of project making and my everyday life.
Healthy collaboration is so much better than dysfunctional collaboration.
The final lesson we learned was to get complex and time-consuming work out of
the way first, resulting in a quicker and easier build. When we started our rocket, we
were told that if we wanted to splice, we should get it out of the way on the first day.
This was important because it would take 5 days for it to dry. I learned that I need to
think ahead more in projects; planning everything out is incredibly impactful and
necessary. In the past, I would have begun building without thinking about what I should
do first. I never thought about how each action would have an effect on the process
later on, and that some should be stacked to create a certain result. I can use this in
everyday life by planning for my future and taking stock of what I have now for use later.

● If you were to do this project again, what would you do differently and why?

If I were to do this project again, there would be a numerous amount of change I

would bring. I would find it necessary to discover the source of our rocket's ability, do
more research on water rocket construction and utilization techniques, and I would have
never used the dowel I did.
The first aspect of our design I would change is to delve into the intricacies of
why our rocket flew the highest, despite its small size and low-level engineering. Many
in our class mockingly believe our rocket was cursed or had some spell over it, allowing
it to fly higher than anyone else’s rocket. This is an interesting theory that is most likely
false, but it is still interesting to look into. When we calculated our time of max height for
the rocket, my group found the answer to be 3.666, which is an interesting discovery. I
would have liked to go into more detail and find resources that describe how bottle
rockets fly. We were supplied with these articles and websites, but I was too busy to
read them. Now that the project is over, I wish I had learned more and could have made
our rocket fly predictably. We could have designed it the way we wanted it, instead of
building something and hoping it worked.
The second activity I would do differently is our research on water rockets. This
was discussed beforehand in this reflection and also in the section above. I wish we had
looked into bottle rockets more, and learned more of the nuanced aspect of them. While
creating our blueprints, we found designs for large four-engined rockets that could fly
hundreds of feet but were unable to delve further into their abilities. There was so much
to learn about engineering and the routes we could have taken in this project, but we
weren’t given the time to research more. This is fully the fault of myself, none to Ande
and Madi. I wish I had given more thought to the project; I would have liked to go to
extravagant ends, building large creations that worked the way they were designed. I
believe both of our rockets' successes were flukes during the building process. We still
can’t say what led them to beat the records, which is a large failure on our part. In the
future, I would find it beneficial to research water rockets to a greater extent so we can
know what causes each disparity in designs and flight.
The final part of this project that I would change is incredibly personal and
design-oriented. I would have liked to have never used the dowel to hold our nose cone
in place. This was our ultimate failure, and it was avoidable. If we had known what we
know now, we would have just created a loose nose cone. It was an excellent learning
experience, but it led to many frustrations.