Added: 4 years ago
From: davmach100
Views: 5,316
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (7)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Sky Writer!

  • I cant believe I just found this video! Davmach100 does a good job explaining why the rocket failed. Structurally it handled the loops and spins without a problem (no failures). Initially, the rocket was intended to be a minimum dia. 4" booster to a minimum dia. 3" sustainer. Unhappy with the altitude we were predicting (50K), we decided to risk throwing on a third stage. In the end our lust for altitude was our downfall. Our initial 2-stage design would of flown just fine. Great video!

  • damn awesome5*

  • Pretty cool looking... For a sec it looked like the upper stages were going to land shark towards the crowd!

  • More a problem with the length and the flex of the airframe mostly caused by the play in the couplers. They had numerous points on the rocket that where coupling different parts together all of which added to the flex problem. The rocket was really well put together but even carbon bends under stress. It didn't break though and they actually flew it twice.

  • Michigan State University?

  • They were hoping for 40k'. Maybe they made it - just not vertically!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more