dickyjones wrote:I think no parachutes would be interesting with the eggs and make people focus more on aerodynamics and stability more than just the parachute system which was basically the event this year. Has anyone tested how backsliders do with the weight of the egg and its padding?
How about a bonus for down range distance (long or short),
Absolutely not, as that would be entirely luck of the draw. Wind is going to be the biggest factor in downrange distance (unless your rocket doesn't launch straight) and that's unpredictable.
or a two rocket formula that rewards long distance on one shot while the second launch should land near the pad?
Again, not viable to judge something that wind has such a great effect on.
If we could get past the safety issue of modifying a pressure vessel, then it would be really cool to have two stage (2x1-liter) rockets. I don't think that we can cluster on a standard launcher, but a vertical 2-stage is possible if we were permitted a hole in the top of the first stage pressure vessel. Not likely to happen.
Sounds cool and it's entirely possible to do, but as you said, not gonna happen.
dickyjones wrote:I think no parachutes would be interesting with the eggs and make people focus more on aerodynamics and stability more than just the parachute system which was basically the event this year. Has anyone tested how backsliders do with the weight of the egg and its padding?
How about a bonus for down range distance (long or short),
Absolutely not, as that would be entirely luck of the draw. Wind is going to be the biggest factor in downrange distance (unless your rocket doesn't launch straight) and that's unpredictable.
No more luck of the draw than the possibility of an updraft under the parachute (discussed earlier).
or a two rocket formula that rewards long distance on one shot while the second launch should land near the pad?
Again, not viable to judge something that wind has such a great effect on.
Having two would reduce that effect. Not hard to judge at all.
No more luck of the draw than the possibility of an updraft under the parachute (discussed earlier).
But a greater effect.
Having two would reduce that effect. Not hard to judge at all.
May cut down the effect somewhat, but wind conditions cannot be expected to be constant. Hard to judge, no, but not exactly the best way to judge either.
No more luck of the draw than the possibility of an updraft under the parachute (discussed earlier).
But a greater effect.
Having two would reduce that effect. Not hard to judge at all.
May cut down the effect somewhat, but wind conditions cannot be expected to be constant. Hard to judge, no, but not exactly the best way to judge either.
I don't think that I can agree on either point. I've seen the updraft thing; it is very large and much more likely to vary between two launches than what I'm thinking would effect the range. It's true that the effect of wind is large, but the difference between two launches would be large only in strange weather.
Why wouldn't it be a good way to judge? It seems no more luck-of-the-draw than what we had this year, and it requires some thought and design work.
The biggest problem that I see is setting up the range. Even with the 1-liter bottles I expect some significant distances. We might need a maximum: kinda like Price-is-Right - go over and you get zero.
getting a updrift isn't entirely luck. if a rocket doesn't go high and the parachute doesn't open high, it doesn't matter if there is a updraft, wind or not. for rockets whose parachutes do open high, the chance of wind carrying it is very high
range?! in that case then, wind would help regardless of how good/bad the rocket design is
Wind is mainly horizontal - you're going to have winds no matter what. Updrafts are less likely to occur. Not sure about where you are, but around here the winds gust - they go from light to heavy in short periods of time.
Since downrange distance is going to be determined mainly by wind, it would really be luck more than anything.
I'm not so sure that the wind is going to dominate like that. With the 1 liter bottles, the outfit isn't aloft for all that long. I would expect that under most weather conditions, aerodynamics of the rocket and recovery system should be as important.
How about running it like trajectory? The target distance is not revealed until the day of competition. You'd need multiple rockets or tunable aerodynamics to score well. Not much chance of a good showing with a rocket that you slapped together the night before.
Anyway, I get the message that this isn't very popular, so I'll drop it. It would be nice to hear some more ideas of changes that could be made that would be less unpopular, but would keep the event from being repetitive. Bonus if it requires some ingenuity and effort to do well, but I'd settle for new, interesting, and entertaining.
Banning parachutes was an interesting idea, but I'm sure we can come up with more.
How about allowing stored energy devices to deploy the recovery system? Timers, rubber bands, springs etc, as long as they don't power flight. The correctly packed parachute was actually in this category already, and nobody said boo.
A requirement that the egg be visible on the pad? The judge bust be able to distinguish a mark on the egg before he pulls the trigger.
Disallow adhesive tape? It would be fun to see the alternatives. Kind of like banning parachutes, though. I'm not sure I like either - it seems too specific.
I'm sure that we can come up with much better ideas.
I like the present rules. There are many ways for teams to do well by having creative designs that fit within the rules. While majority of the scores are in the teens (no bonuses), the top scores lay outliers, meaning there are pathways for teams to follow.
There was a trial event called Airjectory, which is like rockets and trajectory. I would rather see the two events seperate though.
