preliminary design review · 2019. 10. 25. · preliminary design review november 16, 2016...

Preliminary

Design Review November 16, 2016

California State Polytechnic

University, Pomona

3801 W Temple Ave, Pomona,

CA 91768

Student Launch Competition

2016-2017

111/2016

Agenda

11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 2

1.0 General Information

2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview

3.0 Launch Vehicle Subsystems

4.0 Payload Subsystems

5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces

6.0 Flight and Mission Overview

7.0 Safety and Risk Management

8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline

11.0 Requirements Compliance Plan

Probability of Success










8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



11/2016California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 4

Work Break Down Structure

Lead – Safety – Systems – Structures –Aerodynamics – Avionics – Support

Task Force Work Breakdown Structure


Advisors and Mentors

Dr. Donald L. Edberg• Faculty advisor

• Professor of Aerospace Engineering

Dr. Todd Coburn• Structural mentor

• Professor of Aerospace Engineering

Rick Maschek• Rocketry mentor

• Tripoli Rocketry Association level 2 certification











8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



Vehicle Dimensions and Justification

Vehicle Materials and Justification

Stability, CG CP

Preliminary Motor Selection

Launch Parameters




DiameterOuter = 6.1 inInner = 6.0 in

Thickness = 0.106 in

NoseconeExposed Length = 12 in

Shoulder = 2 in

Main Parachute Bay

Length = 18 in

Module 2Length = 30 in

Recovery Bay

Length = 7 in


FMP Bay Length = 8 in

Observation Bay Length = 4 in

Drogue Parachute Bay Length = 4 in

RIS Bay Length = 7 in

Motor Mount Length = 20.8 in

PistonLength = 4 in


Fin Root Chord

Length = 12 in

Fin Tip ChordLength = 2 in

Fin Height = 7 in

Entire Length = 86 in = 7.3 ft

Vehicle Dimensions and Justification

Material Trade Study

Pros• 1/3rd the price of CF• Lower cost allows more

test tubes

Cons• ½ Compressive Strength

of CF


Pros• 2x compressive strength

of BT• Team familiar with CF

Cons• 3x the cost of BT

Pros• Benefits from both

material properties

Cons• 4x cost• Bulky, more difficult to

piece together

Blue Tube 2.0 Blue Tube/Carbon Fiber MixCarbon Fiber

Vehicle Materials and Justification

• Rocket body made out of Blue Tube 2.0

• Nosecone and fins 3-D printed, fins have carbon fiber layer

• Load verification made on three parts• Transition piece with RIS-A Payload

• Engine block

• Recovery bay with snatch load

• Carbon fiber layer made using vacuum bag technique

• Blue Tube bought manufactured, test for compressive strength

• 3-D Printed using personal printers


Stability, CG, CP

Predicted values obtain from OpenRocket


Stability Analysis

Stability Margin 2.28 Calibers

Center of Gravity(from Nose Cone)

53.81 in

Center of Pressure(from Nose Cone)

67.51 in

Entire Length 87.7 in

Outer Diameter 6.1 in

Preliminary Motor Selection

11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR13

Motor PropertiesMotor Designation Aerotech L1150-P

Motor Dimensions (in.) 2.91 in x 20.7 in

Total Weight (lb) 8.10

Propellant Weight (lb) 4.19

Empty Mass (lb) 3.54

Average Thrust (lbf) 259

Maximum Thrust (lb) 303

Total Impulse (lb-s) 791

Isp (s) 172.2

Burn Time (s) 3.1

Class 36% L

• AeroTech L1150-P

• Chosen through simulation• Produced a projected altitude of = 5,555 ft.

Launch Parameters

• Thrust to weight Ratio, Rail Exit Velocity


• Short burn time ensuring rail velocity = 70.5 ft/s• T/W = 10.49

Ascent AnalysisRail Exit Velocity (ft/s) 70.5

Maximum Velocity (ft/s) 765

Maximum acceleration (ft/s2) 312

Maximum Mach Number 0.69

Target Apogee (ft)(From Simulation)

5555

Time to Apogee (s)(From Simulation)

17.7

Launch Vehicle Subsystems









8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



Propulsion Subsystem

Aerodynamics Subsystem

Avionics Subsystem

Recovery Subsystem

Safe Decent Analysis

Deployment Charge and Altimeter Layout and redundancy

Recovery Bay Overview

Launch Vehicle subsystems summary

Launch Vehicle Subsystem Overview


3.0 Launch Vehicle Subsystem


Subsystems outlined in RED have had trade studies performed

Propulsion Trade Study

• Pros:• Easily Reloadable• Comfortable Altitude

Margins• Compatible with COTS

retainers

• Cons:• 18% More Expensive


Aerotech L1150P Animal Work Motor L900RGorilla Rocket Motor L425WC

• Pros:• Longer burn time• Shorter Length• Cheapest

• Cons:• Additional Tools Required

• Incompatible with COTS retainers

• Pros:• Shorter Length• Compatible with COTS

retainer

• Cons:• Additional Tools Required

Motor Selection: Aerotech L1150P


Manufacturer AerotechDiameter 2.95 in

Length 20.9 inTotal Mass 130 oz

Propellant Mass 67.1 ozMaximum

Thrust 303 lbAverage Thrust 259 lb

Burn Time 3.10 sTotal Impulse 791 lb-s

ISP 172 s

Reason for Selection:• High Usability

• Compatible with COTS retainers

• Screw-on Closures

• +/- 300 feet Altitude Margin

• Adjustable for additional mass

Nose Cone Trade Study

• Pros:• Lowest Cd

• Most Stable• Biggest Storage

Volume

• Cons:

• Structurally weak Tip


Parabolic Power Series 0.5Power Series 0.75

• Pros:• Moderate Storage Volume

• Cons:

• Highest Cd

• Tip with Moderate Strength

• Pros:• Moderate Cd

• Strong Tip• More Stable

• Cons:

• Additional Tools Required

• Least Storage Volume

Nose Cone Selected Design: Parabolic


• Lowest Drag Coefficient• Most Storage Volume for

avionics• Provides the greatest

stability

Drag Coefficient: 0.0027

Fin Trade Study

• Pros:• Has the largest internal

volume for components

• Cons:• Has the highest Cd


• Pros:• Has the second highest Cd

and useable volume

• Cons:• Pressure distribution is

concentrated at the leading edge

• Pros:• Has the lowest Cd

• Has the most even pressure distribution

• Cons:• Has the least amount of

useable volume

Rectangular Symmetric TrapezoidalClipped Trapezoidal

Fin Selected Design: Clipped Trapezoidal

•Based upon the trade study the swept back planform represents the best combination of the two key criteria

• The swept back planform produced a good combination

•Mass assumptions are made using Solidworks

• The mass of an individual fin was found to be 0.60 pounds


Data Collection System (DCS) CPU Component Trade Study

• Pros: • Arduino “Shield” friendly

• 4 Serial Communication Busses

• 256KB of flash memory for programming

• Cons:• Large form factor

• “Overkill” amount of pins


Arduino MEGA 2650 Arduino NanoRaspberry Pi 3 Model B

• Pros: • Powerful 1.2GHz 64-bit CPU

• Supports multiple programming languages

• Cons:• Large form factor

• Less durable hardware

• Pros: • Small form factor

• Easier to directly incorporate onto PCB

• Cons:• Limited I/0 capability

• Not component shield compatible

DCS Selected Design: Arduino MEGA 2560


• Integration and component friendly platform

• Will allow use of an XBee shield for long range transmission capability

• Large form factor not a factor for our 6” body tube

Data Collection System Architecture


Observation Avionics Trade Study

• Pros:• 1080p at 30 fps

• Cheap ($60 plus a battery pack)

• Customizable Configuration

• Video has ability to be streamed

• Cons:• Larger, 3.37 in x 2.22 in x .40 in

(board only)

• Complicated setup


• Pros:• Cheap ($70 plus a battery pack)

• Customizable Configuration

• 2.70 in x 2.10 in x 0.40 in (board only)

• Video has ability to be streamed

• Cons:• Low Resolution (640x480 at 30

fps)

• Complicated setup

• Pros:• Simplified (Push button and go)

• 1080p at 60 fps

• On-board battery (Apprx. 1 hour use)

• 1.5 in x 1.43 in x 1.5in (camera only)

• Cons:• Expensive ($200 plus a battery

pack)

• Not customizable

Raspberry Pi 3 Model B with Raspberry Pi Camera Board v2 – 8 Mp

Arduino Uno and TTL Camera with SD breakout with Battery Shield

GoPro Hero Session & Battery Supply

Observation Avionics Selected Design: Raspberry Pi Camera

• This alternative provides a quick, customizable solution to obtain quality video

• Small mirror system without any protuberances needed in the rocket body

• Compact design and takes up limited space


Raspberry Pi 3 Model B with Raspberry Pi Camera Board v2 – 8 Mp, Add Battery Supply

Part Mass

Raspberry Pi 3 Model B 1.59 oz

Raspberry Pi Camera Board v2 0.180 oz

12000 mAh Portable Commercial Battery 9.00

Additional Wires Negligible

Total Mass 10.77 oz

Observation Bay Mirror and Holder Dimensions


Recovery Subsystem

• Designed to meet requirement 2.3: Each section of the rocket landing with less than 75 ft-lbf

• Minimize packing volume to add experimental space

• Dual deploy system with redundant altimeters

• Land within a 2250 ft. radius of the launch rail


Main Parachute Trade Study

• Pros:

• Easy construction

• Low line tangle

• Small packing volume

• Cons:

• 1.5 Cd


• Pros:

• 2.2 Cd

• Smallest packing volume

• Cons:

• Complicated construction

• High tangle probability

• Pros:

• Easiest construction

• Low line tangle

• Cons:

• 1.5 Cd

• Highest packing volume

Elliptical Parachute Hemispherical ParachuteToroidal Parachute

Main Parachute Selected Design: Toroidal Parachute

• Highest Cd

• Lowest packing volume• Packing volume main constraint for trade study due to

experiments

• Complication avoided by purchasing• Readily available in lab

• Purchased through FruityChutes

• Professional construction improves reliability

• 18.3 ft recovery harness length


Main Parachute Selected Design: Toroidal Parachute Continued

Toroidal Parachute

• FruityChutes Ultra Compact Iris 72’’ diameter

• 12.67’’ diameter spill hole

• Projected area of 27.4 ft2


72’’

12.67’’

Drogue Parachute Trade Study

• Pros:

• Extremely stable

• Easy construction

• Low packing volume

• Cons:

• 1.1 Cd

• Subject to tangling


• Pros:

• Easy Construction

• 1.5 Cd

• Cons:

• Less Stable

• Higher packing volume

• Pros:

• 2.2 Cd

• Low packing volume

• Cons:

• Extremely difficult to deploy

at this scale

Cruciform Parachute Toroidal ParachuteElliptical Parachute

Drogue Parachute Selected Design: Cruciform Parachute

Cruciform Parachute

• Custom built with RipStopnylon

• 40% of main’s area• Scaled up to 11.3 ft2 for

safety margin

• 18.3 ft recovery harness length


Recovery Altimeter Trade Study

• Pros:• Micro USB interface

• Cons:• Double the cost of a

StratologgerCF


• Pros:• Third firing circuit for

other applications

• Cons:• Requires an additional

computer interface system

• Pros:• Cheapest unit

• Cons:• Requires an

additional computer interface system

AIM USB StratologgerCFRRC3

Recovery Altimeter Selected Design: StratologgerCF

• Most cost effective unit• The StratologerCF has lowest price point and is capable of performing

recovery needs.

• Requires Computer interface• The interface can be shared by more than one altimeter.


StratologgerCFDimensions:

2” X 0.8” X 0.5”Weight: 0.38 oz

2”

0.8”

0.5”

2”

Top View

Side View

GPS Trade Study

• Pros:• Amateur radio license not

required for operation• Dedicated receiver system

• Cons:• Most expensive unit• Shortest range of 6 miles


• Pros:• System does not require

license to operate• Half the price of BRB900 and

TELEGPS

• Cons:• Requires cellular service to

transmit data

• Pros:• Over 15 mile operation

distance

• Cons:• Requires amateur radio

license to operate

BRB900 TELEGPSTrakimo

GPS Selected Design

• Transmits with 900MHz frequency• 900 MHz does not require an amateur radio operator’s license for

operation

• Use of this system does not require cell tower reception to operate

• The BRB900 system comes with receiving hardware• The system comes with hardware that guaranties a 6 mile

operational range, but can be boosted to 15 miles with a Yagi antenna

• The unit is ready to be used out of the box and paired with the receiver system


Safe Descent Analysis

• All current mass assumptions are generated via Open Rocket software. Subject to change during development.

• Kinetic energy drives maximum landing velocity constraint:

• Design Velocity: 20.3 ft/s


ComponentMass Max Velocity

(slugs) (ft/s)

Nose Cone 0.109 37.1

Forward Rocket Section 0.149 31.7

Aft Rocket Section 0.363 20.3

• Back-solving drag equation to find area

• Required area: 18.6 ft2

• Area of selected parachute: 18.6 ft2

• Maximum landing velocity: 20.3 ft/s

• Projected landing velocity: 16.7 ft/s

𝐴 =2𝑊

𝐶𝐷𝜌𝑉2

Deployment charge

• There are two charges located on the rocket1. Drogue chute charge

2. Main chute charge

• Each charge size is calculated individually since the chamber size varies between the main and drogue compartments

• The calculated variable are a theoretical starting point. The charges need to be test on the ground to verify that the rocket will separate properly.


Altimeter Layout and Redundancy

• The two altimeters are mounted next to each other on the electronics sled for ease of access

• Each altimeter has dedicated e-matches and batteries create redundant systems

• Redundancy is important for a critical function such as recovery system deployment


Recovery Avionics Bay

Internal Components

• Avionics sled

• Two bulkheads

• Two 3-D printed sled retainer

Features

• 1.5 in Long collar at center

• Collar contains two 0.5 hole for control switches

• Collar contain four 0.25 in vent holes

• 6.0 in diameter shoulder to serve as a coupler between sections

Recovery Bay Properties

• Weight: 2.45 lbs.

• Length: 7.0 in.


DiameterOuter = 6.1 inInner = 6.0 in

Thickness = 0.106 in

NoseconeExposed Length = 12 in

Shoulder = 2 in

Main Parachute Bay

Length = 18 in


Recovery Bay

Length = 7 in


FMP Bay Length = 8 in

Observation Bay Length = 4 in

Drogue Parachute Bay Length = 4 in

RIS Bay Length = 7 in

Motor Mount Length = 20.8 in

PistonLength = 4 in


Fin Root Chord

Length = 12 in

Fin Tip ChordLength = 2 in

Fin Height = 7 in


Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary



+ X

Center of GravityXcg = 53.81 in = 4.48 ft

Center of PressureXcp = 67.51 in = 5.63 ft

2.28 Calibers




Clipped Trapezoidal Fin Parabolic Nose Cone Aerotech L1150P



Arduino Mega 2650 Observation Bay: Raspberry Pi 3 Model B with Raspberry Pi Camera Board v2 – 8 Mp, Add

Battery Supply



Toroidal Parachute Cruciform Parachute PerfectfliteStratologgerCF



Recovery Bay BRB900 GPS Transmitter

Launch Vehicle Characteristics

Mass 28.1 lbs

Motor Characteristics L -1150P2.91 in x 20.7 inImpulse = 784 lbf-sEmpty Mass = 3.54 lbsLaunch Mass = 8.13 lbsIsp = 172 s

Max Velocity 765 ft/s

Max Acceleration 312 ft/s^2

Apogee 5555 ft

Mach Number 0.69Source: OpenRocket











8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



Preliminary Primary Payload Design:

-RIS, Roll Induction System

Preliminary Secondary Payload Design:

-FMP, Fragile Material Protection




• Primary payload will be a roll induction system, or “RIS”, as described by Experiment Option #2

• General System Requirements:• Roll Control of Vehicle

• Executes at least (2) rolls of the vehicle post-motor burnout

• Halts all further rolling motion after roll maneuver

• Three architectures considered:• RIS A: Inertial Flywheel Design

• RIS B: Fin Control Surfaces

• RIS C: Deployed Control Surface Hybrid

Primary Payload: Roll Induction System


Graphic courtesy of NASA.gov

RIS A: Inertial Flywheel Design


• Concept utilizes the physics of moments of inertia and torque

• Pros:• Not dependent on aerodynamics• Quick response time (given sufficient mass of flywheel)• Critical failure of system would not necessary lead to loss of

vehicle

• Cons:• Heavy system with flywheel and large batteries• Would require larger motor; structural reinforcement throughout

launch vehicle• Large accelerations add to design complexity

RIS B: Fin Control Surfaces


• Servo actuated control surfaces utilizing low atmospheric flight profile

• Pros:• Low mass burden on launch vehicle• Low power consumption• Quick response time (given sufficient surface area of control

surfaces)

• Cons:• Adds degree of fragility to fins• Needs refined and durable servo-mechanical design• Requires some degree of control system sophistication• Challenging integration

RIS C: Deployed Control Surface Hybrid


• Hybrid concept that utilizes deployable control surfaces

• Pros:• Low mass burden on launch vehicle• Low power consumption• No structural perturbations during motor burn• Deployed fins would retract after parachute deployment

• Cons:• Questionable response time• Deployment physics would add to design complexity• Improper operation of system could lead to vehicle loss

RIS Trade Study Summary

• Pros: • Not dependent on aerodynamics

• Quick response time

• Cons:• Significant mass burden

• Structural and design complexity

• Safety issues


RIS A: Inertial Flywheel RIS C: Deployed Control Surface Hybrid

RIS B: Fin Control Surfaces

PicturePicture

• Pros: • Quick response time

• Low mass burden

• Cons:• Errant trajectories

• Challenging integration

• Pros: • Retractable fins increase

chances of reusability

• Unaffected aerodynamic stability during motor burn

• Cons:• Failure of system could lead to

loss of vehicle

Selected Design: RIS BServo-actuated Fin Control Surfaces


• Effective, energy efficient means of achieving our experiment goals

• Safety features:• Coupled mechanical system

• Low mass burden: much lighter rocket

• Challenging:• Requires refined mechanical design

• Requires refined control feedback system

RIS Preliminary Circuit Design

• Payload Control System (PCS)

• High end microprocessor system• Input: High resolution IMU

gyroscopic + acceleration data

• Output: Servo actuation

• Dedicated control system; DCS in Avionics Bay will transmit data to ground station


RIS Payload Summary

Having decided on an architecture, we are eager to start designing and fabricating.

Verification• IMU data and video from Observation bay

Subscale Launch Objectives:• Primary:

• Data acquisition• Successful operation of DCS (transmission of data)

• Secondary: • Simulated control responses• Full deployment of system will only happen after a sufficient number of

successful simulated trials


Secondary Payload: FMP, Fragile Material Protection Trade Study

• Pros: Ease of Access, Low Cost, Easy to Fix

• Cons: Complex to Build


• Pros: Structural Integrity

• Cons: Heavy, Difficult to Install,

Box Suspension

• Pros: Most Simplistic, Lightweight, Low Cost

• Cons: No back up, Little Durability

Surgical Tubing Air Bag

This design is the most reliablebecause makes the installation of the fragile material on the day of the launch the quickest and easiest out of the other alternatives.


Selected Design: FMPSurgical Tubing

FMP Mass Summary


Item Purpose Mass (lbs)

Surgical Tubing Holding the FMP pill in place 0.2

White Printer Filament 3-D Printed Pill to hold fragile materials 0.31

Egg Crate Foam Reduce stress on fragile materials 0.13

Plywood Maintain shape of payload and hold tubing 0.73

Sponge Act as a cushion in case tubing extents too far 0.2

Total 1.57

FMP Characteristics and Dimensions


FMP Characteristics and Dimensions Continued

66

FMP Location on Rocket


The Fragile Material Protection bay will be located in the green cell above. This will make access to the cell easy, as the rocket separates between the greenand drogue parachute bay.

FMP Payload Summary

The chosen design will lead to the greatest safety of the fragile material but that comes at the cost of a complex fabrication process. We will begin building the design promptly.

• Subscale Launch Objectives:• Primary:

• Full test of chosen design

• Survival of fragile material











8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



Avionics Integration

Launch Vehicle to Ground Station Interface

Fin Integration

Payload Interface




Avionics Integration


Fiberglass Electronics SledCourtesy of rocdoc, rocketryforum.net

• Data Collection System and Payload Control System will be mounted on 3D printed sleds secured between two bulkheads

• Minimum wiring; PCB soldered wherever possible

• Nylon standoffs and standard 4-40 screws

• All fasteners and fastener hard points will be tested for sufficient structural strength

Launch Vehicle – Ground Interface

• Data from launch vehicle will be transmitted in real time to our ground station

• Will provide redundancy for satisfying roll verification requirement

• GUI interface: National Instruments LabVIEW


Fin Integration

Fin Integration

• Fin integration will occur in the motor bay

• Interlocking design with bulkheads

• Allocated space for the L-class motor

• Allocated space for payload RIS integration

Payload Interface

Dedicated RIS Payload Bay- 7 in Length - 6 in Diameter- Electronics needed for

RIS functionality

RIS Servo Mount Section- Location for servos

to actuate the controllable surface on the fins

RIS Wire Runways - Location for wires to run through

small holes cut in the bulkheads- Connects the RIS payload bay to the

servos located in the fins

Note:Detailed Design of Payload Interface will be in CDR










8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



Flight Profile

Mission Performance




Flight Profile

• Launch

• MECO• Roll induction experiment

preformed

• Apogee: 5555 ft• Drogue release

• Main parachute deployment• 500 feet

• Landing


Mission Performance

• Rail exit velocity: 70.5 ft/s

• Maximum acceleration: 312 ft/s2

• Max velocity: 765 ft/s (Mach 0.69)

• Kinetic energy during drogue descent

• Kinetic energy during main descent


Kinetic Energy of each section (Ft-lbs)

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

86.8 169 290

Kinetic Energy of each section (Ft-lbs)

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

17.8 34.5 59.5

Mission Performance Continued

• Drift calculations • main parachute opens at 500 ft.

• All wind cases meet the maximum drift requirement of 2250 ft.


-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

0 mph 5 mph 10 mph 15 mph 20 mph Max Drift Distance










8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



Safety Officer

Risk Assessment Code

Risk Level Assessment

Failure Modes and Effects Example Table

7.0 Safety and Risks


7.0 Safety and Risks

Safety and Risk

Safety Officer: Michael Nguyen Responsibilities:• Safety Plans

• Material• Lab

• Safety Briefings• Prelaunch• Launch

• Risk Assessments• Compliance with Federal,

State, Local Laws

Risk Assessment Code

Likelihood 1Catastrophic

2Critical

3Marginal

4Negligible

A - Frequent 1A 2A 3A 4A

B - Probable 1B 2B 3B 4B

C - Occasional 1C 2C 3C 4C

D - Remote 1D 2D 3D 4D

E - Improbable 1E 2E 3E 4E

Risk Level AssessmentsRisk Levels Assessment

Risk Levels Risk Assessments

High RiskHighly undesirable, will lead to failure to complete the project

Moderate RiskUndesirable, could lead to failure of project and loss of a severe amount of competition points

Low RiskAcceptable, won’t lead to failure of project but will result in a reduction of competition points

Minimal RiskAcceptable, won’t lead to failure of project and will result in only the loss of a negligible amount of competition points

Failure Modes and Effects Example

Hazard Cause Effect Pre –Mitigation RAC

Pre - Risk Mitigation Post –Mitigation

Drogue or main parachute fails to deploy

•Black powder charges fail to ignite•Malfunction in the e-matches•Malfunction in altimeters •Altimeters fail to send signals•Incorrect wiring of avionics and pyrotechnics

Irreparable damage to launch vehicle, its components, and electronicsFailure to meet reusability requirementFailure to meet landing kinetic energy requirement

1B High •Redundant black powder charges, altimeters, and e-matches•Ground testing of electric ignition system (igniting black powder charges)•Detailed launch procedure check list, that includes all the procedures of properly installing all avionics and pyrotechnics in the launch vehicle , will be created and followed

2E

Structural failure/shearing of fins during launch

•Insufficient epoxy used during installation of fins•Epoxy used to install fins is improperly cured

Unstable launch vehicle, resulting in an unpredictable trajectoryPossible launch vehicle crash and injury to personnel

1D Moderate •Reinforce fins with sheets of carbon fiber•Examine epoxy for any cracks prior to launch•Perform test on fin installation•Ensure all personnel are alert and are the appropriate distance away from launch pad during launch

2E

8.0 Outreach









8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



Prospective Plan

Prospective Schools

8.0 Outreach


8.0 Outreach

Prospective Plan


• Educational/Direct Interaction• Effect of drags and what variables control it

• Parachutes given to teams of students

• Timed drop, evaluated in classroom

• Educational/Indirect interaction• Relate subject of class to STEM idea of NSL project

• Visual examples through PowerPoint

• Outreach/Direct Interaction• Lecture on propulsion/structures

• Rocket parts used as physical medium to teach through

Prospective Schools


• International Polytechnic High School (iPoly)• Close to Cal Poly Pomona campus

• Outreach between schools has been done before

• Ruben S. Ayala High School

• Tustin High School• Previous outreach performed

• Canyon Hills Jr. High

9.0 Budget









8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



9.0 Budget Plan


Cost1767.33

929.36

1655.16

1134.47

361.36

96

9204.329

3729.38

1756.94

15148.01

Educational Engagement Budget

Overall BudgetLaunch Vehicle Structure Budget

Subscale Launch Vehicle Structure Budget

Recovery System Budget

Payload Experiment(s) Budget

TOTAL Full Scale Launch Vehicle cost

TOTAL Sub Scale Launch Vehicle cost

Other Budget

Travel Budget

TOTAL ALL

9.0 Budget Plan Continued


Funding Source Amount

Cal Poly Pomona Associated Students Incorporated (ASI) Grant $5,500

Cal Poly Pomona Engineering Council Special Projects Funding $900

California Space Grant $4,000

Cal Poly Pomona Research and Projects Grants $2,000

Local Businesses $2,000

Fundraising $800

Total $15,200

10.0 Timeline









8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



10.0 Timeline


01/15/2017 – 4/24/2017

10/14/2016 – 01/15/2017

Review Timeline

10.0 Timeline Continued


11/17/2016 – 01/15/2017

Launch and Test Timeline










8.0 Outreach

9.0 Budget

10.0 Timeline



DRIVING Vehicle Requirements (VR)DRIVING Recovery System Requirements (RSR)DRIVING Experiment Requirements (ER)DRIVING Safety Requirements (SR)DRIVING General Requirements (GR)Derived Requirements




DRIVING Vehicle Requirements (VR) Examples


Verification Method (1) Test (2) Analysis (3) Demonstration (4) Inspection V = Verified IP = In Progress NV = Not Verified

REQ# Description 1 2 3 4 V IP NV

VR1.1

The vehicle shall deliver the

science or engineering payload

to an apogee altitude of 5,280

feet above AGL

Combination of the aerodynamics,

as well as the thrust of an L-class

motor selection and the weight of

the overall launch vehicle. 4.6.3 x

As of the PDR, OpenRocket

simulations of the leading

design will be sufficient

enough. For the overall

competition, flight tests shall

be done to ensure accuracy

of simulations

1

VR1.4

The launch vehicle shall be

designed to be recoverable and

reusable.

Recovey subsystem shall allow the

launch vehicle to become

recoverable and all structures and

electronics shall be intact and ready

to use again

4.4.1 x

Conducting launch tests shall

result in a usable vehicle

afterwards. The structures

team shall design the

structure to be robust and

withstand impact loads

1

Vehicle Requirements (VR)Design Requirements Section

Verification MethodVerification Details

STATUS

DRIVING Recovery System Requirements (RSR) Examples




RSR2.1 The launch vehicle shall stage

the deployment of its recovery

devices, where a drogue

parachute is deployed at apogee

and a main parachute is

Combination of piston ejection

system and black powder activation

for main parachute deployment and

black powder for drogue

deployment

4.4.1 x

Recovery testing will be

done to determine the

proper deployment of

parachutes

1

RSR2.2 Each team must perform a

successful ground ejection test

for both the drogue and main

parachutes. This must be done

prior to the initial subscale and

Recovery tests and ejection tests

done on 12/3/2016 for subscale and

2/4/2017 for full scale 8.3.1 x

Results of the ground

ejection test shall verify

successful performance 1

RSR2.3 At landing, each independent

sections of the launch vehicle

shall have a maximum kinetic

Custom drogue parachute and

custom main parachute 4.4.1 x

Hand calculations and

respective simulations to

analyze kinetic energy

1

STATUSRecovery System RequirementsDesign Requirements Section


DRIVING Experiment Requirements (ER) Examples



ER3.3 Roll induction and counter roll

ER3.3.1

Teams shall design a system capable of

controlling launch vehicle roll post motor

burnout.

RIS - A (Inertia Flywheel Design), RIS - B

(Fin Aileron Design), or RIS - C (Aerofan

Design) will begin at post motor

burnout

6.1.1,6.1.

2x x

Inspection of payload

operations and design to

function post burnout1

ER3.3.1.1

The systems shall first induce at least two

rotations around the roll axis of the launch

vehicle.

RIS - A (Inertia Flywheel Design) uses

moment of inertia of heavy cylindrical

object, RIS - B (Fin Aileron Design) uses

aerodynamics manipulation to roll, or

RIS - C (Aerofan Design) uses

aerodynamic manipulation

6.1.3 x

Testing of rolling moment

1

ER3.3.1.2

After the system has induced two rotations,

it must induce a counter rolling moment to

halt all rolling motion for the remainder of

launch vehicle ascent.

RIS - A (Inertia Flywheel Design) uses

moment of inertia of heavy cylindrical

object, RIS - B (Fin Aileron Design) uses

aerodynamics manipulation to roll, or

RIS - C (Aerofan Design) uses

aerodynamic manipulation

6.1.3 x

Testing of rolling moment

1

ER3.3.2

Teams shall not intentionally design a

launch vehicle with a fixed geometry that

can create a passive roll effect.

RIS - A (Inertia Flywheel Design), RIS - B

(Fin Aileron Design), and RIS - C

(Aerofan Design) are all passive effects6.1.3 x

Inspection of chosen payload

design1

Experiment Requirements Option 2Design Requirements Section


STATUS


DRIVING Experiment Requirements (ER) Examples



ER3.4 Fragile material protection

ER3.4.1

Teams shall design a container capable of

protecting an object of an unknown material

and of unknown size and shape.

Alternative 1, 2, and 3 designs

accommodate for unknown sizes

and shapes in the container6.2.3 x

Different materials placed

inside payload and

determine if it survives a

drop test

1

ER3.4.1.2

The object(s) shall survive throughout the

entirety of the flight.

The usage of a soft material will

allow for load absorption and the

encasing device will secure the

object in place

6.2.2 x x

Materials placed inside

payload shall survive during

drop tests1

ER3.4.1.5

The provided object can be any size and

shape, but will be able to fit inside an

imaginary cylinder 3.5” in diameter, and 6”

in height.

Dimensions shall be larger than

3.5" in diameter and 6" in heightto

accommodate the material6.2.6 x

Inspection of design to fit

the dimensions listed

earlier1

Experiment Requirements Option 3Design Requirements Section


STATUS


DRIVING Safety Requirements (SR) Examples



SR4.1

Each team shall use a launch and safety

checklist. The final checklists shall be

included in the FRR report and used during

the Launch Readiness Review (LRR) and any

launch day operations.

Safety Officer will create a

checklist prior to FRR and

LRR 7.1

x

At LRR, demonstration of the

use of the checklist

1

SR4.3.3

Manage and maintain current revisions of

the team’s hazard analyses, failure modes

analyses, procedures, and MSDS/chemical

inventory data

Safety Officer will update

the hazard, failure,

procedure, and MSDS sheets

for all reviews in

accordinance to new

materials and regulations

7.1

x

Review (preliminary, critical,

etc.) documents will

demonstrate these hazard

analyses, failure modes, and

procedures

1

Safety RequirementsDesign Requirements Section


STATUS


DRIVING General Requirements (GR) Examples



GR5.5

The team shall engage a minimum of 200

participants in educational, hands-on science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

activities, as defined in the Educational

Engagement Activity Report, by FRR. An

educational engagement activity report shall be

completed and submitted within two weeks after

completion of an event. A sample of the

educational engagement activity report can be

found on page 28 of the handbook.

Outreach Manager, Diran,

will be in charge of

planning activites with

over 200 students

9 x

Demonstration of

education activities

1

GR5.6The team shall develop and host a Web site for

project documentation.

cpprocketry.net1.4 x

Inspection of website

existence 1

General RequirementsDesign Requirements Section


STATUS


DRIVING Derived Requirements Examples



DR1.0Roll Maneuver must follow sequence of

events:

DR1.0.1 Motor burn out 1

DR1.0.2On board instrumentation accounts for

natural rotation of rocket1

DR1.0.3The roll system shall induce a moment to

generate at least 2 full rotations1

DR1.0.4After full rotation, the roll system induces a

moment to counter rotation 1

DR1.0.5The system shall return the rocket to its

initial rotation measured at rocket burnout1

DR2.0Ouline Safety Officer Responsibilities Generate a list of

responsibilities in PDR7.1 x

Inspection of the PDR1

DR3.0

Cameras oriented downwards to view

launch and for payload verification

Observation Bay shall be

angled downward for viewing x

Demonstration that

cameras can view aft of

the vehicle

1

STATUSVerification Details

Roll Maneuver sequence of

events outlined in Review

documents and design the

system to meet the events

6.4

Payload tests will verify

that the sequence of

events are followed

x

Derived Requirements (DR)Design Requirements Section

Verification Method



Initial Conceptual

Design

Trade Studies, Risk Mitigations,

PlanningLeading Designs

High Confidence of Success



2016-2017 CPP NSL TEAM

QUESTIONS?

preliminary design review · 2019. 10. 25. · preliminary design review november 16, 2016...

Documents