Model rocket question?
923198
Hi. Try this second stage link : http://www.apogeerockets.com/education/how_to_multi-stage.asp
395094
It depends on the model
671958
Start at\n\nhttp://web.mit.edu/pmc/www/pastprojects/Planar/planar.html\n\nThen look at \n\nhttp://psfcwww2.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/pubs/presents/dpp01_garnier.pdf\n\nThen you can go to \n\nhttp://web.mit.edu/6.302/www/maglev_F05.pdf\n\nBut the best thing would be to take note of the first answer you got to this question.
922469
I found this very easily on the Internet.  You could have done the same thing.\n\nhttp://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/RADEC.HTML
212075
Nasa does, apparently they made it work too.\n\nGo to your nearest hobby store, look at a model rocket , the one that actually work and the times that by a 100, add some heating and air tanks, etc .\n\nBudget for a couple of 100million dollars or take a VirginSpace flight at $200,000. He's selling tickets now. Cheapest way.
978352
A model volcano is always a hit. Or a model of the solar system. For the latter, just string some colored balls on the interior of a shoe box painted black. Pretty simple.
973634
You can get it off of ebay with no questions asked. MY questions would be are you making bombs? Do you have a black  powder gun? or are you trying to lower the male sexdrive?
972876
the major action/reaction pair is :\nthe air escaping from the baloon- action.\nthe rocket reacting by moving forward- reaction.\n\neverytime the rocket veers from a straight line path this is another action.  the reaction is the force of the rope on the straw holding the rocket on track
837694
Bottle Rockets with Water. You can test for how high to get the rocket to go, like amount of water to amount of pressure in the bottle. Its a fairly cheap thing to do, you just need an open field. you need data tables and record keepers. you need atleast 2people on this, 3 would make it alot easier.
448983
when you have complex machines, especially ones with rocket fuel, things on ocassion fail, they still do, rockets blow up every year. the trick is to minimize the failure through better design and materials and manufacturing. MIKE
185168
Model rockets were always good for me. A demonstration also gets you out of the classroom and always WOWs the crowd!
747360
Well gosh....  \n\nsince the only linear unit mentioned in the question is 18 ft/s  let's assume that the 60 is going to give us acceleration in ft/sec^2 \n\nSo, the position function for this is the second integral of the acceleration function, right? \n\nso...  the first anti-derivative of 60t is  30t^2   which gives the velocity, so at the end of the boost phase, our rocket is moving 30 * 3 * 3 = 270 ft/s \n\nand the second antiderivative is 10t^3  right?  \n\nSo, the position at time T is 10 * 3 * 3 * 3 = 270 feet.  (odd coincidence, but there you are...) \n\nNow, the rocket begins a SECOND acceleration by gravity of -32 ft/s negative 'cause we're accelerating DOWN now... ....   but this time the acceleration is constant,  so \n\nV = gt   and s = 1/2  a  t^2 so, we're slowing from 270 feet per second to zero at the top...  and  t = v/g = 270 / 32 = 8.44 seconds and the height we coast to is the 270 we had at the end of boost plus   1/2  *  32  * 8.44 * 8.44 = 1140 feet.  \n\nThe parachute is going to open after 14 seconds...   so, 14-8.44 is 5.56 seconds of free-fall (and we'll ignore air resistance again) so, we go from zero to something in 5.56 seconds....   and position is 1140 - ( 1/2  * g  * t^2 ) again...   so, the parachute opens at \n\n1140 - (1/2  * 32  * 5.56 * 5.56 )  = 645 feet. \n\nad the velocity is  gt = -32 * 5.56 = -178 feet per second...  \n\nNow, for the NEXT five seconds, we slow under the effect of the parachute   to  -18 ft/sec -- so,  we slow by 160 feet per second in five seconds, so the acceleration of the parachute is (oddly) 32 feet/second squared (huh, how odd is that? )  \n\nSo, the distance traveled during that phase is Vo t + 1/2 at^2  \n\nSo, we have (-160 * 5) + (1/2*32*5*5) =  -800 + 400 = 400 feet.  \n\nand from 400 feet up, we continue down at 18 ft/s for an additional  22 seconds...  \n\nand the rocket lands at t = 22 + 5 +  14 + 3  = 44 seconds \n\nAnd yes, I dropped a bunch of decimal points.  Your original data was only to two significant digits....
326416
some ideas of what you could make the model from:\n\nstyrofoam\nclay with rocks\nlegos\npaper mache (shape your wall then take strips of newspapers dipped in glue and water mix and cover it..you can paint it when it dries)\nyou could use small boxes or cut up cereal boxes..and then paint them. \n\nor you could get really wacky and make it out of those little take out containers...or noodles..and shellac them. use your imagination!\n\nyou could even make a really tiny model and then build a model of a rocket that is larger..to show that it can be seen from space!
395571
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rocketry
810893
Oscar. You have written too much. This 125m tower stuff does not matter compared to r=6.38*10^6. Why is this talk about 1.00 km and angle theta? See what “zipper” above says. Besides I answer your last question << Why is the trajectory of the cannonball not parabolic?>>. Why should it be if both you and Newton demand it to be circular? Assume that V1 of cannonball is the 1st cosmic speed corresponding to a circular track. Let V2 be > than V1, then you receive an oval track. Take V3 > than V2, then the track may become parabolic, so that cannonball would never return back to the cannon to linger out among planets and stars. If you are intrigued calculate a set of velocities and corresponding orbits of the cannonball. If cannon is not available consider a football! I like your inventive wits – to be honest!
757800
I'd just buy solid rocket fuel at hobby store. Blackpowder is just going to explode and really not burn.
531134
Depending on the resources you have available you could do an experiement with rockets (small ones foudn at the store). With this you could measure the time in the air, distance traveled, speed would be difficult but you could get an average if you had the distance and time. And by changing the wieght/structure of the rockets would give you measurements on mass. You would have to keep the angle at which you launched them at a constant. (keep in mind the wind factor if out doors)\n\nOther wise if you are looking to only hit one of those topics I suggest testing the mass of objects using water displacement.