Lame rockets : LUSENET : Junkyard Wars : One Thread

The rockets on the finals were so lame. I couldn't believe "rocket scientist's" didn't do better! With the engines they had to work with I would have made them look even worse! That cone thing? What ever happined aerodynamics? What a DRAG! And that other thing,,,,Unstable,,,, over powered,,, (at launch) and just not a good design unless you have 30 billion dollars in computers and giros at your disposal. You want to see a rocket? Give me the same material and half the construction time and you will have to get clearance from air traffic controllers, possably N.A.S.A.!!!!!!

-- BM (, January 28, 2001


Ya, everyone who watches could do better. Your rocket would look like every other rocket. But what about style and trying something out of the ordinary. When you get your rocket built...sit on it.

-- John Gap (, January 28, 2001.

Having watched the last few episodes of Junkyard Wars, I've concluded that the experts get together before the show and decide what their teams are going to build, ensuring that each team is using a different design, engineering approach, etc. This is for entertainment value. It would have been rather boring if both teams had built essentially identical rockets, or identical hovercrafts, etc.

Neither of the experts ever justified why they wanted to build the cone thing or the three-engine cluster. But they were both a little out of the ordinary, so it was entertaining - even as all us knowledgable viewers felt a traditional single-engine rocket would have performed the best and been the most reliable.

-- Gordo (, January 28, 2001.

HEY BM>>>>!!! apply to the show, and lets see what you`ve got !..never judge another till youve walked in their footsteps!

-- tim (, January 28, 2001.

I just think a challenge is stipid when they leave Everything you need to build it around the junkyard... A challenge where you just have to find the engines around the junkyard is boring.. And dont you think it was a little wierd that each team found an identical tent for their parachute each with the color of thier team clothing??!! I wanted to see some origional stuff!! launching machines or something... Creativity is entertaining!

-- will (, January 28, 2001.

If you were paying attention to the show, you would have heard them explain that they hid many items in the scrap heap because they were items that would not normally be found in one.

-- Rick (, January 28, 2001.

The RDF people decide what they want each team to build, and find someone with experience in that field, who then becomes the "expert" for that team. At that point, the staff is in contact with the expert and they have the expert submit a plan, and time-line for building a machine by that plan. The plan must include a wish list of materials necessary for the expected result to work. On the day of the build, the team finds out what the challenge is for the day. From that point, the team and expert begin discussing their thoughts about what to build. The team has the right to can the expert's plan at any time during the build day. (This happened with one of the British teams) Some of the things that the expert requests may be missing, or not found, and the expert, as well as the team captain are not allowed to roam the pile and hunt for the parts. There is a terrific amount of pressure to move along with the build, and if the parts can't be found, or they turn out to be duds, the build can become very complicated, esp after the build has been committed to working with one specific part which does not work. I agree that the build a rocket challenge didn't seem like all that great of a challenge, but the recover the egg part was the real challenge, requiring creativity and luck. Both teams did a good job, and made a good show.

-- Waddy Thompson (, January 28, 2001.

Well I thought it was amazing that they even got off the ground as poorly designed as they were. I hate to say it as I love the Art Attacks(June's a real cutie) but their rocket was lame. It was about as aerodynamic as a hippo in a toto & poorly constructed as it collapsed in flight from wind resistance. I was building rockets in high school almost 30 years ago that were much better then either of those. I used two stage rockets that the first engine would ignite the second then the second would pop the chute out at it's highest point The whole thing (All the stages) would float down nice and easy. We used to shoot chicken eggs up too the same way without breaking them. So I was kinda disappointed in their experts.

-- Rick The Rocket (, January 29, 2001.

It's a good thing you weren't working at Nasa in the past three decades, because you would still want to be flying the Mercury progam instead of the space shuttle. "Lotalty to a petrified opinion never once broke a chain or freed a human soul"..... In other words, you don't brave new territory if you stick with the old way all the time just because it's safe. Boring!

-- roger (, January 29, 2001.

OK OK OK,,,,, I'm sorry! Acually I loved every show, including the rockets. And I didn't mean to direct any of my frustration towards the teams. I just thought a three stage bottle rocket design with the egg payload on the nose and a fin on the tail would perform better. Again, stability and that constant worry of weight should prevail. Yes, I was thinking I could have done better but that comes from that constant drilling in school we all recieved to win win win in sports and everything else. To all the teams that participated in the challenges,,, WELL DONE! BM.

-- bm (, January 29, 2001.

The fact is we did have to get clearance from the air traffic, and it limited us to 2500'. This is the reason for the cone design. First it simplied the stability calculations and insured a relativly straight flight. Second with the types of motors that we had available it was hard to keep the rockets from breaking the waiver. So, the big draggy lightweight cone enable us to use a big motor, make a spectacular flight and keep it under the waiver. Believe me, I would of loved to punch a hole in that waiver. Nothing, could of been easier.

-- James Tucci (, January 29, 2001.

If you had designed it from the beginning to be spin stabilized, would that have helped the flight? Instead of the wild wobbling you got on the show.

(To reply in email replace blort dot invalid with anime dot net)

-- Dan Hollis (goemon@blort.invalid), January 29, 2001.

HELP!!!! After having watched the Junkyard Wars/Scrapeheap Challenge for a few months I can not believe we missed the final rocket competition!!! From reading the previously posted messages, I assume the Art Attacks lost and the farm boys (can't recall name right now) won. Perhaps it was because the show conflicted with my father's memorial service! Could someone please inform me as to who really really won? Thank you ever so much, Andrea

-- Andrea Hathaway (, January 29, 2001.

No was not nessary or desirable in the design. What it needed was 4 more stringers in the skirt section. We put four in due a lack of material, time and brain matter on my part. The skirt was just too flimsy to withstand the pressure difference between the exterior and interior. As a result sections of the skirt deformed as the rocket built up speed causing a spin. It is very hard to judge the flight from the video shown. It was much straighter than it seemed and reached a very respectable altitude for something that big. (1150 ft by the on board altimiter)

-- James Tucci (, January 29, 2001.

Hey bud! You obviously don't have school age children. My 10 year old just loved that show. Being interested in the stars and astromomy, it showed him that anyone has the potential to achieve the goal he has set for himself. This show is about education. And i can tell you, that my son learned more from that episode than any other one yet. So get out of your ass and into the real world....... I bet you watch the WWF and thinks it's real... Don't you....

-- Craig Wardle (, January 31, 2001.

Hey Bud, Who the hello are you talking to ? Nobody said anything about kids here > You been smokin that wacky tabacky again < ? LOL

-- (, January 31, 2001.

Really Craig, what was that all about? Are you responding to the right thread???

-- John Gap (, January 31, 2001.

Didn't intend to be missunderstood! All I am saying is that no matter how lame or great the projects are.... The Idea of the show ( and Cathy will agree with me ) is to teach people about science and engineering. While making it entertaining for the viewers. And my son learned something from those lame rockets. Maybe because they were so crude..Bottom line is... IT"S IN THE SCRIPT....

-- Craig Wardle (, January 31, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ