Rocket Lab

By Roman Bradley

12/3/18 - 12/13/18

For Mr Hendricks’s Honors Physics Class

The Academy of Math, Engineering, and Science

 Abstract

An experiment was done in which the height reached by a rocket was predicted and then
rockets were launched in order to test the predictions. Experimenting with drag force analysis
and the thrust of the engine helped to accurately predict the final height the rocket would reach.
In the end, the results are reasonably close considering the assumptions and limitations given.
The predictions are only a few meters off compared to the height the rockets travel to.

Results:

Prediction Actual

Engine A 83 m 70 m

Engine B 153 m 123 m

Introduction
 The goal of the experiments covered in this paper was to see how close one could
predict the height of a solid fuel rocket launch and compare that to the actual height the rocket
traveled to when launched. The bigger objective was to test the full capacity of the skills learned
so far this year and get a good experience in a large scale project.

To predict the height two experiments were done. The first was thrust analysis. The force
exerted by an unknown engine was evaluated using a force gauge and a program called
LoggerPro. This was to find the impulse of the unknown engine.

The second experiment was to find the drag coefficient of the rocket. This was done
using a wind tunnel. The rocket was hung from a string in the tunnel while wind was blown
through it. The angle of the string was determined. The mass of the rocket and the speed of the
wind was known. This was helpful because when a rocket is launched one important factor is
wind resistant which can now be known.

The engines hypothetical impulses along with the wind resistance of the rocket could be
used to predict the final height. The prediction was done using a series of complicated
equations; unfortunately it cannot be done with one formula. Numerical iteration had to be used
to predict the final height of the rocket because each new data point depended on the previous
which relied on other data points. The predictions were made using a spreadsheet.

The last step was to measure the height that the real rockets reached. This was done
with protractors and people standing at equal distances from the rocket. Once the rockets actual
heights were found the heights (predicted vs actual) were compared.

Vocabulary:
Kinematics - The study of motion and acceleration
Momentum(P) - Quantity of motion calculated by mass and velocity
Dynamics - Study of how forces affect motion
Drag Force -The resistance of the rocket (air resistance)
Impulse - Force exerted over a period of time
Drag Coefficient(k) - The air resistance constant in the equations Fd = kv2

All of the topics studied this year in physics were put to the test in this experiment. Other
essentials are Newton’s laws, Kepler’s laws, and the law of conservation of momentum. These
were used to derive necessary equations to help predict the hypothetical height of the rockets.

To predict how high the rockets would fly the impulse momentum theorem was used. It
states that impulse is equal to the change in momentum.

Impulse ≡ F ∗ Δ T

Impulse=ma ΔT
Impulse=m Δ V
Impulse=Δ P
P=mv

Thrust Analysis
 The first portion of this rocket lab was to analyze the force created by the engine on the
rocket. This was necessary to eventually predict the height to which the rocket could travel. To
find the force this engine puts out the rocket was placed on a track on a relatively frictionless
cart resting against a digital force gauge. This force gauge was connected to a computer
running the program LoggerPro. This program could calculate and give the resulting forces for a
period of time. When ready the rocket engine would be lit off using an igniter (battery connected
to a wire w/ phosphorus on it to light rocket engine). The igniter was for safety purposes.

Diagram:

Rocket Engine

Digital
Force
Gauge
LoggerPro was calibrated before doing the experiment. The settings used were as
follows:

Duration: 3 seconds - this was the time LoggerPro would be collecting forces
Data Collection: 10 force samples per second - LoggerPro would collect 10 different forces put
out by the rocket every second.

Triggering: force < -0.1 N - when LoggerPro found a measurement less than -0.1 N, it would
initiate data collection. The reason the force was negative was because the force gauge
measured pushing and pulling forces. Pushing forces, which were being utilized, are negative.
LoggerPro was zeroed by setting the force to zero when the only pressure on the force gauge
were the rocket and the cart.

Once LoggerPro initiated and collected the force of the rocket pushing on the force
gauge it generated a table of data giving times and the amount of force in newtons. All of these
forces were negative but were flipped to positive for sake of logic.

Thrust data:
Time (s) Force (N) Time (s) Force (N)

0 0 1.1 3.8

0.1 5.9 1.2 3.7

0.2 15.2 1.3 3.8

0.3 4.9 1.4 4.0

0.4 4.4 1.5 3.9

0.5 4.4 1.6 3.5

0.6 4.0 1.7 3.6

0.7 4.2 1.8 3.8

0.8 4.1 1.9 2.8

0.9 3.9 2.0 0

1.0 4.0

Graph:

Impulse was calculated using a force vs. time graph (as shown above) under which
rectangles were drawn (area under the curve) and used to calculate the area which was the
impulse.

From this data a few things could be determined. One could find the engine used in this
experiment. Many types of rocket engines exist but the only engines possibly used in this
experiment were A, B, C. Each output a different force:
A: 2.5 N
B: 5 N
Really
C: 10 N
These were the graphs of force vs time for each rocket slow
Fu Fa burning
me st fuel
s bur
and nin Super
exh g fast
aus fue burnin
t l g fuel
 The impulse created by the rocket used in this experiment was found to be 8.8 N. This
was calculated using the area under the graph; adding all the force data points together and
then multiplying by 0.1 (time for each data point.) 8.8 was closest to 10 so it was assumed that it
was a C engine. The next specification was the average force output by the engine. In this case,
4.63 N was different from 8.8 because it was the average force not the total force. Therefore, it
was most likely to be a C5 engine eventough it was actually a C6 engine. The reason for this
discrepancy was due to manufacturing of the engine, to area under the curve inaccuracies, or to
angle of force on gauge.

Example engine label:

Average Force
outputted

C6-5 Delay
time
Engine
type
The delay time was the delay from when the rocket finished being propelled upwards by
the fuel and the parachute released.

Drag Force Analysis

When a rocket was launched, the impulse of the engine wasn’t the only thing that was
taken into consideration. Many other factors came into play such as air resistance which is
proportional to the velocity squared. This becomes especially important when object move at
very high speeds such as rockets do. To find the air resistance, the drag coefficient (the k value
in Fd = kv2) is needed. In order to find the drag coefficient, the rocket was placed in a wind
tunnel. The wind tunnel used a fan to pull air through a honeycomb formation at high speed.
The honeycomb pattern was necessary so that the laminar flow would go very straight and did
not push the rocket in a downward or upward direction The rocket was hung from a string in this
tunnel and could be viewed through a glass pane. When the wind was turned on, the rocket was
pushed back at an angle. Using a protractor the angle of the string and the mass of the rocket
were used to measure the drag coefficient.

Fdrag = Drag force � = offset of string attached to rocket from vertical.

K = drag coefficient V = velocity of wind in the tunnel
M = mass of rocket G = gravity T = tension of string
Freebody diagram:
Mea
sure
x Turbu
Lami Tc T dF
nar angl lence
os Tsin d flow
flow e
x x m
g
Roc
Hone
Deriving drag coefficient equation:ket
ycom
F∝v 2
b relationship between Force and Velocity
Fd=k v ❑
2 ❑
patterdrag coefficient*
Σ Fy=ma f=ma
n for vertical (y) forces
Tcosθ−mg=0 inputting forces from freebody diagram
mg
T= solving for tension
cos θ
Σ Fx=ma f=ma for horizontal (x) forces
Tsin θ−Fd=0 inputting forces from freebody diagram
mgtan θ=Fd substituting out tension*

*These two equations will be combined to find the final equation used to find the drag
coefficient:
mgtanθ
=k
v2

The values from the wind tunnel were as follows:

Mass of rocket: 43 g
Velocity of wind tunnel: 32 m/s
The first number was the actual value being used in the experiment and the second was the
value listed on the protractor.
�1 = 36° → 54°
�2 = 34° → 56°
�3 = 36° → 54°
� = 35.5° (average)

These measurements in degrees were taken three times by different people because a hand
held protractor was not the most accurate method of measurement. This value had to be
subtracted from 90 because the angle being used was the complementary angle to what was
measured.
Calculations:
(43 g)(9.8 m/s 2) tan(35.5)
=k
32 2
−4 2 2
3 ×1 0 N∗s /m

This value was reported to one significant figure because the use of a protractor was not very
accurate. The unit newtons seconds squared per meter squared came from resistance over an
area over time.

Numerical Analysis/Height Prediction

The purpose of calculating both drag force and the output of an engine was to predict
the final height of the rocket as accurately as possible. Unfortunately the prediction could not be
done with just a few equations. The height prediction was done with a spreadsheet. This used
time and thrust to find the average thrust, the drag force at that time, the final velocity during this
time, and the final height. This was done using many equations, listed below.

Thr1 = thrust at beginning of time period Thr2 = Thrust at end of time period
hi = initial height kd = drag coefficient v = velocity

Average Thrust(Thravg): (Thr1+Thr2)/2 Initial Velocity(vi): previous rows final velocity

Drag Force(Fd): Fd=kdvf2 Final Velocity(vf): vi + (FnetΔt/m)
Average Net Force(Fnet): Thravg - mg - Fd Average Velocity: (vi + vf)/2
Average Net Impulse: FnetΔt Final Height: hi + vavgΔt

Using the spreadsheet attached, the final height could be predicted along with the time
that it takes to reach that height. This value was found where the rocket reaches its highest
height and starts to fall. Another aspect that should be taken into consideration is the power of
drag force. The drag force was only 0.0003 which seems very small and shouldn’t make much
of a difference but as seen below it matters a lot. These rockets are moving incredibly quickly
and do not weigh very much therefore the drag force was very important. One last consideration
was the time when the rocket ran out of fuel.
A8 Engine B6 Engine C6 Engine

Predicted max height 83 m 150 m 295 m

Time to max height 4.0 s 5.15 s 6.7 s

Time to run out of fuel 0.70 s 0.95 s 2.0 s

Final height w/o drag force 149 m 435 m 1320* m

*The table ran out of space to read heights, this wasn’t even the final height.

Now that those heights have been predicted the only thing to do was actually launch
rockets with each of these engines and see if the predictions are accurate.
 Flight Analysis

The final portion of this experiment was to launch the rockets and measured the heights
to which they reached. One rocket was launched for each engine(A, B, C). The rockets were
launched from a circular pad with a rod in the middle to hold the rocket. Like in the thrust
analysis piece of the experiment the engine was lit using an igniter and a battery. To find the
final height the rocket traveled to three people stood 50 meters from the rocket on roughly three
sides in a triangle(120 degrees apart). Each person held a protractor with a string and a weight
attached. Each person pointed the flat side of the protractor towards the rocket and as it travels
upwards follows it until it reaches its max height and begins to fall. The reason three persons
are used is because the rockets will not travel straight upwards and therefore one person from
each side the average angle they calculate should have been pretty close to accurate.

Diagram:

Pers
on 50
1
mete
rs 12
Ro 0
ck The
et angles
Pers
lau Per
on 3
nc son calculated with the protractors are then averaged and
h 2 used with the distance from rocket to find the height the
pa rocket travelled to. The day of the rocket launch there
were some clouds and wind so the only the A and B
d engine rockets could be accurately measured. One has
to expect some errors and mishaps when launching
rockets.

Equation to find height:

50 m(distance persons stand from rocket) * tan(average angle - 90) + 1.5 m (eye level height)

Data:
Engine A rocket Engine B rocket

Raw Angle (person 1) 139° 158°

Raw Angle (person 2) 146° 163°

Raw Angle (person 3) 146° 152°

Raw Angle - 90° (averaged) 53.7° 67.7°

Calculation 50tan(53.7°) + 1.5 50tan(67.7°) + 1.5

Final Height 70. m 123 m

 Possible errors in these calculations include; human error(can’t perfectly measure
angle), rockets didn’t go straight upwards, and rockets weren’t all identical.

Conclusion

This report had many successes and some failures. The goal of predicting a semi-
accurate height was a success. The predicted height is only a few meters from the actual
height, at least for A and B rockets. The launch of the C rocket wasn’t a total failure it just could
not be viewed because it went too high.

Prediction Actual

Engine A 83 m 70 m

Engine B 153 m 123 m

The best way to have gotten better results would have been to launch the rockets in a
more ideal situation; a day with no clouds and no wind. Also a sensor on the rocket that
calculates the height could have removed a bit more human error which would have been
beneficial. There were inaccuracies on both the prediction and actual sides of the experiment as
well as most likely errors early in the experimentation so obviously the results won’t ever be
perfect but only 13 and 30 meters off is pretty impressive for a rocket going close to 100 m in
the air.

Reflection

This was a very interesting project to do. The fact that it took a multitude of days and
different experiments was different from anything done so far this year. It was impressive how
close the prediction were to the actual result. One thing I personally didn’t love is that we did
very little experimenting on our own. Almost all of the experiment done was with Mr. Hendricks
holding our hand. I would’ve enjoyed some more freedom and room to fail and try again if
something was done incorrectly. Otherwise I felt like this was a good experience in the real
world of experimentation, data collection, and problem solving.