Mission Goal
Design, justify, and safely demonstrate a separating booster concept for a water rocket: a staged separation event that is controlled, low-risk, and testable — with clear safety governance.
This is not about “more power”. It’s about systems thinking: interfaces, failure containment, and responsible launch decision-making.
Why it matters
Staging is one of the hardest things in rocketry because it introduces: separation dynamics, debris risk, reliability requirements, and ethics (can we do this safely in our environment?). Real launch providers only fly stage separation after extensive ground testing and review.
Inputs from other teams
- Command & Control: formal go/no-go, hazard analysis, roles and sign-off.
- Structures: safe couplers, alignment, and “fail-safe” separation methods.
- Comms: clear range calls; emergency stop protocol.
- Recovery: expanded debris/recovery plan (separating elements land in predictable areas).
- Payload: if a payload exists, ensure separation can’t damage it.
Constraints
- Water rockets only. No pyrotechnics, no combustion, no chemical reactions.
- No dangerous separation mechanisms: no explosives, no high-speed springs, no sharp parts.
- Separation must be low-energy and predictable (e.g., gravity, airflow, or a gentle release).
- Teacher has the final authority to cancel if risk is not acceptable.
- Any separation test must be done with expanded range controls and audience distance.
What you must produce (deliverables)
- A staged design proposal: diagram + explanation of how separation works and why it’s safe.
- A hazard review: top risks, mitigations, and “stop conditions”.
- A ground test plan: how you will test separation without launching first.
- Evidence of at least one safe demonstration (ground test and/or very low-risk flight test if approved).
Scaffolding Example (optional)
You are allowed to reuse structures and formats from other teams — but not their decisions.
Example: Safe separation “proposal pack” structure
- Purpose: What are you trying to learn from staging? (interfaces, governance, predictability)
- Mechanism: Describe the low-energy separation method in plain English.
- Ground test: How you demonstrate separation without launching.
- Hazards & mitigations: Top 3 risks + how you reduce them.
- Stop conditions: Exact reasons you will cancel the test.
- Range plan: Where people stand, where parts are expected to land, who retrieves.
Example low-energy mechanisms (school-safe style)
- Slip-fit coupler: a gentle push-fit that releases when thrust ends (tested on the ground first).
- Gravity demo: staged “drop away” demonstration on a stand (no flight required).
- Airflow-triggered release (very cautious): only if ground tests prove predictability and staff approve.
Example “stop conditions” (copy the format, write your own)
- If separation throws parts sideways beyond the planned zone.
- If any join peels or sharp edges appear.
- If wind/range conditions make recovery unpredictable.
- If the teacher judges the risk unacceptable — cancel = success.
Build & test steps
- Start with the question: “Do we need separation?” Define the learning goal.
- Choose a low-energy mechanism (examples):
- Slip-fit coupler that separates when thrust ends and airflow changes.
- Magnet/Velcro-style gentle retention (only if school approves) that releases under low load.
- Gravity separation: booster section drops away after a latch is released on the pad (ground demo).
- Ground test first: simulate the separation event at walking speed / low energy.
- Define containment: where do parts go? Can they drift into spectators?
- Run a formal review with teacher + a student board: approve, modify, or cancel.
- If (and only if) approved, run a cautious flight test with expanded perimeter and spotters.
- Post-test analysis: did it separate as intended, and did your mitigations work?
Launch-day checklist
- Expanded range and crowd distance. Spotters assigned.
- Separation “stop conditions” reviewed out loud before any test.
- All components inspected: coupler secure, no sharp edges, predictable release only.
- Clear calls: “Range clear?” “Clear.” “Separation test active.”
- Post-event: confirm all parts accounted for before next launch.
Success criteria
- Team demonstrates strong judgement: safety and evidence over “cool factor”.
- Separation behaviour is predictable in a ground test.
- If a flight test occurs, it remains safe: no uncontrolled debris toward people.
- Hazard review and stop conditions are taken seriously and followed.
Evidence checklist
- Diagram + written explanation of the separation mechanism.
- Hazard review document with mitigations and stop conditions.
- Ground test video (required).
- If approved: flight test video + range layout photo (safety perimeter visible).
- Post-test report: what happened, what you’d change, whether you’d fly again.
Safety rules
- No pyrotechnics, no high-energy springs, no sharp parts.
- Teacher can cancel at any point; cancellation is a success if risk is high.
- Ground tests first; never “first-try” staging in a full-power launch.
- Expanded safety perimeter and spotters required for any separation demo.
- Account for all parts after every test.
Common failure modes
- Separation is too energetic → parts scatter unpredictably.
- Mechanism relies on luck → non-repeatable and unsafe.
- No containment plan → debris risk.
- Skipping ground tests → learning the hard way (don’t).
- Chasing performance instead of judgement → wrong objective at Level 5.
Stretch goals
- Create a “Flight Readiness Review” checklist template your school can reuse.
- Design a staged test ladder: bench test → slow separation → low-energy demo → (optional) flight test.
- Document ethical decision-making: when you chose not to launch, and why.