Page Comparison

• We've done it before so we know what to do as a baseline so we could better ourselves.

• It would be far cheaper.

• We have hardware and parts for 10k so reusing them would keep costs low.

• It would give us a chance to focus on other aspects of the rocket such as simulations and analysis or better manufacturing techniques.

• We aren't currently winning at the competition so it may be better to perfect a 10k then to move on and be a mediocre There's a lot more to a rocket besides going high that we can focus on (manufacturing techniques, avionics, simulations, presentations, etc.)

• We're far from the best 10k at IREC, it may be smart to first make better 10ks then move on to 30k.

• It would be just another 10k rocket.

• We've done it before so it's not expanding and making a higher goal it's instead staying at the same level.

• People might lose interestThere may not be enough substance in a 10k rocket to keep everyone engaged and interested.

• It wouldn't be as intense of a challenge.

• A lot more competition in this class as it's the most "basic" .

• It would test our skills in manufacturing because a higher apogee leads to less room for defects.

• A higher apogee would be interesting and a good talking point.

• People have already agreed on doing 30k.

• Fewer competitors in this category

• We haven't had a successful one before.

• More Much more expensive.

• Higher altitude and airspeed means less freedom of design - some things may need to be cut or shrunk, rocket can pretty much only be 1 shape.

• Making our own motor would make the rocket more unique and it would bring in a different skill set to the team.

• There is less competition in SRAD than COTS.

• We've done it 10k before so we know what to do as a baseline so we could better ourselves.

• It would be far cheaper.

• We have hardware and parts for 10k so reusing them would keep costs low.

• It would give us a chance to focus on other aspects of the rocket such as simulations and analysis or better manufacturing techniques.

• We aren't currently winning at the competition for 10k COTS so it may be better to perfect a 10k then to move on and be a mediocre 30k.

• Less competition due to being SRAD.

• There's a lot more to a rocket besides going high that we can focus on (manufacturing techniques, avionics, simulations, presentations, etc.)

• Working on propulsion development gives us more for people to do.

• We're far from the best 10k at IREC, it may be smart to first make better 10ks then move on to 30k.

• If the SRAD part doesn't work we could always fall back to doing 10K COTS.

• We've never done SRAD motors so that would be a pretty huge unknown launched SRADs as a team., so it is an unknown

• Only one member is currently experienced in solids.

• Nobody on the team has the proper certs to launch an SRAD

• SRADs are harder to quantify, may make precise altitude targets tricky

• It's more work for the team.Getting people's interest and not burning them out.

  
  

• Radio frequency can get through!
• We

• can use COTS tubes which would save on manpower.
• Easier to machine, (slightly) fewer safety concerns as well
• Fiberglass can be dyed, so no need for paint weight

• Buying COTS tubes would be fairly basic

• Winding fiberglass may have unique challenges that we don't foresee.

• It'd be made of uniform composition keeping to the theme of the name.

• We can manage carbon fiber manufacturing so it wouldn't be learning a new process from scratch.

• We still have the materials for doing carbon fiber.

• The lack of radio

• transparency.

• Judges dislike carbon fiber or black airframes.

• Black airframe will get hotter in the sun

• We could allow for radio frequency to go through as well as still having the custom carbon fiber aspect.
• It would allow us to save money and use our previous resources.

• Not having just one of the same type of material potentially creating fit issues in manufactured parts.
• Judges may see carbon fiber booster as a radio "dead spot" if rocket is overhead

• Unique, judges like to see deployed payloads

• More complex, giving us more opportunities to learn

• We haven't successfully recovered one before.

• More complex, meaning it takes more man hours away from the rocket

• 1/2 - 2/3 of payload volume taken up by recovery systems

• Likely more expensive due to redundant IREC-required tracking and deployment systems

• Keep it simple which will potentially make it more successful.

• Ability to swap for a dead mass at any time and not worry about deployment issues.

• We don't have to deal with accidentally losing it in the desert.

• Less interesting for the

• judges.

• Limits what we

• are able to do

• in the payload.

Drone

(Deployable)

• Very complex
• Licensing concerns

Rover

(Deployable)

• Very complex
• Rough Terrain

Black Box of

Electronics

(Deployable or Non-Deployable)

• Simple and able to evolve based on team needs
• Inexpensive

• Fairly basic

Deployable Mass

(Deployable) 

• Pretty much nothing learned from it
• Would likely not qualify for SDL (nonfunctional mass)

Reaction Wheel

(Deployable)

• Good way to add more mass to payload

• May not be allowed under IREC rules

Actual Science Payload

(Deployable or Non-Deployable)

• Judges like to see real-world implications of what we do

• Requires a lot of work and (probably) money

GPS Tracking/Data Relay

(Deployable)

• Judges like to see real-world implications of what we do

• Possible to do with COTS electronics

• RF Black Magic Fuckery
• Populating more radio channels frowned upon

Adding Smoke System to Payload

(Deployable or Non-Deployable)

• Useful addition

• May be difficult to reach 9 pounds