|
|
|
|
|
|
by squeakynick
2164 days ago
|
|
|
Author of article here. Thanks for kinds comments. Yes, it's possible to stabilize bottle rockets with fins (to adjust the CP), but as the article hints, the stick is multipurpose in helping with launch, as well as stability (plus being easy to manufacture with low precision). I just published a follow-up article talking about bigger rockets. http://datagenetics.com/blog/july22020/index.html Aeronautics is a complex science and my articles are intended to pique interest, not oversimplify or belittle. It's a hard balance to explain things in a few hundred words. I hope you enjoy them and, if there is interest, they become the catalyst for you to learn more. It's a fascininating subject. |
|
|
Re: the stick...
> the stick is multipurpose in helping with launch, as well as stability (plus being easy to manufacture with low precision)
True. Model rockets achieve mostly the same, except instead of keeping the stick attached to the rocket, the stick is instead attached to the launchpad, and is stuck through two (or more) holes on the side of the rocket (fancier/bigger rockets typically opt for rails, but a simple metal rod is typically good enough for smaller rockets).
Like I mentioned, if such a rocket were to be built to be disposable (i.e. with a "recovery system" that just disintegrates the rocket instead of something like a parachute), they could probably be cost-competitive and performance-competitive with mortars (probably a slightly-higher upfront cost due to the launchpad and electric ignition system instead of a traditional fuse, but not by a whole lot); that they ain't typically used for pyrotechnics seems to imply a regulatory issue with doing so.