Preliminary Design Review

Transcription

1 Preliminary Design Review November 16, /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 3801 W Temple Ave, Pomona, CA Student Launch Competition

2 Agenda 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 2

3 1.0 General Information 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 3

4 Work Break Down Structure Lead Safety Systems Structures Aerodynamics Avionics Support California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 11/2016 4

5 Task Force Work Breakdown Structure 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 5

6 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 6

7 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 7

8 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview Vehicle Dimensions and Justification Vehicle Materials and Justification Stability, CG CP Preliminary Motor Selection Launch Parameters 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 8

9 Vehicle Dimensions and Justification Entire Length = 86 in = 7.3 ft Module 1 Length = 12 in Module 2 Length = 30 in Module 3 Length = 44 in Diameter Outer = 6.1 in Inner = 6.0 in Thickness = in Fin Height = 7 in Nosecone Exposed Length = 12 in Shoulder = 2 in Piston Length = 4 in Recovery Bay Length = 7 in Drogue Parachute Bay Length = 4 in FMP Bay Length = 8 in Observation Bay Length = 4 in RIS Bay Length = 7 in Fin Tip Chord Length = 2 in Fin Root Chord Length = 12 in Main Parachute Bay Length = 18 in Motor Mount Length = 20.8 in

10 Material Trade Study Blue Tube 2.0 Carbon Fiber Blue Tube/Carbon Fiber Mix Pros 1/3 rd 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 10

11 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 11

12 Stability, CG, CP Predicted values obtain from OpenRocket Stability Analysis Stability Margin 2.28 Calibers Center of Gravity (from Nose Cone) Center of Pressure (from Nose Cone) Entire Length Outer Diameter in in 87.7 in 6.1 in 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 12

13 Preliminary Motor Selection AeroTech L1150-P Chosen through simulation Produced a projected altitude of = 5,555 ft. 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR Motor Designation Motor Dimensions (in.) Motor Properties Aerotech L1150-P 2.91 in x 20.7 in Total Weight (lb) 8.10 Propellant Weight (lb) 4.19 Empty Mass (lb) 3.54 Average Thrust (lb f ) 259 Maximum Thrust (lb) 303 Total Impulse (lb-s) 791 I sp (s) Burn Time (s) 3.1 Class 36% L 13

14 Launch Parameters Thrust to weight Ratio, Rail Exit Velocity Ascent Analysis Rail Exit Velocity (ft/s) 70.5 Maximum Velocity (ft/s) 765 Maximum acceleration (ft/s 2 ) 312 Maximum Mach Number 0.69 Short burn time ensuring rail velocity = 70.5 ft/s T/W = Target Apogee (ft) (From Simulation) Time to Apogee (s) (From Simulation) /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 14

15 Launch Vehicle Subsystems 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 15

16 Launch Vehicle Subsystem Overview 3.0 Launch Vehicle Subsystem 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 16

17 Subsystems outlined in RED have had trade studies performed 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 17

18 Propulsion Trade Study Aerotech L1150P Gorilla Rocket Motor L425WC Animal Work Motor L900R Pros: Easily Reloadable Comfortable Altitude Margins Compatible with COTS retainers Cons: 18% More Expensive 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 18

19 Motor Selection: Aerotech L1150P Reason for Selection: High Usability Compatible with COTS retainers Screw-on Closures +/- 300 feet Altitude Margin Adjustable for additional mass Manufacturer Diameter Length Total Mass Propellant Mass Maximum Thrust Average Thrust Burn Time Total Impulse ISP Aerotech 2.95 in 20.9 in 130 oz 67.1 oz 303 lb 259 lb 3.10 s 791 lb-s 172 s 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 19

20 Nose Cone Trade Study Parabolic Power Series 0.75 Power Series 0.5 Pros: Lowest C d Most Stable Biggest Storage Volume Cons: Structurally weak Tip Pros: Moderate Storage Volume Cons: Highest C d Tip with Moderate Strength Pros: Moderate C d Strong Tip More Stable Cons: Additional Tools Required Least Storage Volume 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 20

21 Nose Cone Selected Design: Parabolic Drag Coefficient: Lowest Drag Coefficient Most Storage Volume for avionics Provides the greatest stability 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 21

22 Fin Trade Study Rectangular Clipped Trapezoidal Symmetric Trapezoidal 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 22

23 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 23

24 Data Collection System (DCS) CPU Component Trade Study Arduino MEGA 2650 Raspberry Pi 3 Model B Arduino Nano Pros: Arduino Shield friendly 4 Serial Communication Busses 256KB of flash memory for programming Cons: Large form factor Overkill amount of pins 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 24

25 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 25

26 Data Collection System Architecture 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 26

27 Observation Avionics Trade Study 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 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 27

28 Observation Avionics Selected Design: Raspberry Pi Camera Raspberry Pi 3 Model B with Raspberry Pi Camera Board v2 8 Mp, Add Battery Supply 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 Part Mass Raspberry Pi 3 Model B 1.59 oz Raspberry Pi Camera Board v oz mah Portable Commercial Battery 9.00 Additional Wires Negligible Total Mass oz 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 28

29 Observation Bay Mirror and Holder Dimensions 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 29

30 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 30

31 Main Parachute Trade Study Elliptical Parachute Toroidal Parachute Hemispherical Parachute 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 31

32 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 32

33 Main Parachute Selected Design: Toroidal Parachute Continued Toroidal Parachute FruityChutes Ultra Compact Iris 72 diameter diameter spill hole Projected area of 27.4 ft /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 33

34 Drogue Parachute Trade Study Cruciform Parachute Elliptical Parachute Toroidal Parachute Pros: Cons: Extremely stable Easy construction Low packing volume 1.1 Cd Subject to tangling Pros: Cons: Easy Construction 1.5 Cd Less Stable Higher packing volume Pros: Cons: 2.2 Cd Low packing volume Extremely difficult to deploy at this scale 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 34

35 Drogue Parachute Selected Design: Cruciform Parachute Cruciform Parachute Custom built with RipStop nylon 40% of main s area Scaled up to 11.3 ft 2 for safety margin 18.3 ft recovery harness length 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 35

36 Recovery Altimeter Trade Study AIM USB RRC3 StratologgerCF 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 36

37 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. StratologgerCF Dimensions: 2 X 0.8 X 0.5 Weight: 0.38 oz Top View 0.8 Side View /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 37

38 GPS Trade Study BRB900 Trakimo TELEGPS 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 38

39 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 39

40 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 Component Mass Max Velocity (slugs) (ft/s) Nose Cone Forward Rocket Section Aft Rocket Section Back-solving drag equation to find area Required area: 18.6 ft 2 Area of selected parachute: 18.6 ft 2 Maximum landing velocity: 20.3 ft/s Projected landing velocity: 16.7 ft/s A = 2W C D ρv 2 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 40

41 Deployment charge There are two charges located on the rocket 1. 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. 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 41

42 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 42

43 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. 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 43

44 Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary Entire Length = 86 in = 7.3 ft Module 1 Length = 12 in Module 2 Length = 30 in Module 3 Length = 44 in Diameter Outer = 6.1 in Inner = 6.0 in Thickness = in Fin Height = 7 in Nosecone Exposed Length = 12 in Shoulder = 2 in Piston Length = 4 in Recovery Bay Length = 7 in Drogue Parachute Bay Length = 4 in FMP Bay Length = 8 in Observation Bay Length = 4 in RIS Bay Length = 7 in Fin Tip Chord Length = 2 in Fin Root Chord Length = 12 in Main Parachute Bay Length = 18 in Motor Mount Length = 20.8 in

45 Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary + X 2.28 Calibers Center of Gravity Xcg = in = 4.48 ft Center of Pressure Xcp = in = 5.63 ft Entire Length = 86 in = 7.3 ft 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 45

46 Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary Clipped Trapezoidal Fin Parabolic Nose Cone Aerotech L1150P 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 46

47 Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary Arduino Mega 2650 Observation Bay: Raspberry Pi 3 Model B with Raspberry Pi Camera Board v2 8 Mp, Add Battery Supply 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 47

48 Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 48

49 Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary Toroidal Parachute Cruciform Parachute Perfectflite StratologgerCF 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 49

50 Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary Recovery Bay BRB900 GPS Transmitter 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 50

51 Launch Vehicle Subsystems Summary Mass Launch Vehicle Characteristics 28.1 lbs Motor Characteristics L -1150P 2.91 in x 20.7 in Impulse = 784 lbf-s Empty Mass = 3.54 lbs Launch Mass = 8.13 lbs Isp = 172 s Max Velocity Max Acceleration Apogee 765 ft/s 312 ft/s^ ft Mach Number 0.69 Source: OpenRocket

52 4.0 Payload Subsystems 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 52

53 4.0 Payload Subsystems 4.0 Payload Subsystems Preliminary Primary Payload Design: -RIS, Roll Induction System Preliminary Secondary Payload Design: -FMP, Fragile Material Protection 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 53

54 Primary Payload: Roll Induction System 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 Graphic courtesy of NASA.gov 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 54

55 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 55

56 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 56

57 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 57

58 RIS Trade Study Summary RIS A: Inertial Flywheel RIS B: Fin Control Surfaces Picture RIS C: Deployed Control Surface Hybrid Picture Pros: Not dependent on aerodynamics Quick response time Cons: Significant mass burden Structural and design complexity Safety issues 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 58

59 Selected Design: RIS B Servo-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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 59

60 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 60

61 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 61

62 Secondary Payload: FMP, Fragile Material Protection Trade Study Surgical Tubing Air Bag Box Suspension Pros: Ease of Access, Low Cost, Easy to Fix Cons: Complex to Build Pros: Most Simplistic, Lightweight, Low Cost Cons: No back up, Little Durability Pros: Structural Integrity Cons: Heavy, Difficult to Install, 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 62

63 Selected Design: FMP Surgical Tubing This design is the most reliable because makes the installation of the fragile material on the day of the launch the quickest and easiest out of the other alternatives. 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 63

64 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 /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 64

65 FMP Characteristics and Dimensions 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 65

66 FMP Characteristics and Dimensions Continued 66

67 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 green and drogue parachute bay. 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 67

68 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 68

69 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 69

70 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces Avionics Integration Launch Vehicle to Ground Station Interface Fin Integration Payload Interface 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 70

71 Avionics Integration 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 Fiberglass Electronics Sled Courtesy of rocdoc, rocketryforum.net 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 71

72 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 72

73 Fin Integration

74 Fin Integration

75 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 Fin Integration

76 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

77 6.0 Flight and Mission Overview 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 77

78 6.0 Flight and Mission Overview 6.0 Flight and Mission Overview Flight Profile Mission Performance 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 78

79 Flight Profile Launch MECO Roll induction experiment preformed Apogee: 5555 ft Drogue release Main parachute deployment 500 feet Landing 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 79

80 Mission Performance Rail exit velocity: 70.5 ft/s Maximum acceleration: 312 ft/s 2 Max velocity: 765 ft/s (Mach 0.69) Kinetic energy during drogue descent Kinetic Energy of each section (Ft-lbs) Section 1 Section 2 Section Kinetic energy during main descent Kinetic Energy of each section (Ft-lbs) Section 1 Section 2 Section /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 80

81 Mission Performance Continued Drift calculations main parachute opens at 500 ft. All wind cases meet the maximum drift requirement of 2250 ft /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR mph 5 mph 10 mph 15 mph 20 mph Max Drift Distance

82 7.0 Safety and Risk Management 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 82

83 7.0 Safety and Risks 7.0 Safety and Risks Safety Officer Risk Assessment Code Risk Level Assessment Failure Modes and Effects Example Table 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 83

84 Safety and Risk Safety Officer: Michael Nguyen Responsibilities: Safety Plans Material Lab Safety Briefings Prelaunch Launch Risk Assessments Compliance with Federal, State, Local Laws

85 Risk Assessment Code Likelihood 1 Catastrophic 2 Critical 3 Marginal 4 Negligible 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

86 Risk Level Assessments Risk Levels Assessment Risk Levels High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Minimal Risk Risk Assessments Highly undesirable, will lead to failure to complete the project Undesirable, could lead to failure of project and loss of a severe amount of competition points Acceptable, won t lead to failure of project but will result in a reduction of competition points Acceptable, won t lead to failure of project and will result in only the loss of a negligible amount of competition points

87 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 electronics Failure to meet reusability requirement Failure 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 trajectory Possible 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

88 8.0 Outreach 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 88

89 8.0 Outreach 8.0 Outreach Prospective Plan Prospective Schools 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 89

90 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 90

91 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 91

92 9.0 Budget 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 92

93 9.0 Budget Plan Overall Budget Launch Vehicle Structure Budget Subscale Launch Vehicle Structure Budget Recovery System Budget Payload Experiment(s) Budget Educational Engagement Budget Other Budget Travel Budget TOTAL Full Scale Launch Vehicle cost TOTAL Sub Scale Launch Vehicle cost TOTAL ALL Cost /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 93

94 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 94

95 10.0 Timeline 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 95

96 10.0 Timeline 10/14/ /15/2017 Review Timeline 01/15/2017 4/24/ /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 96

97 10.0 Timeline Continued 11/17/ /15/2017 Launch and Test Timeline 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 97

98 11.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 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 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 98

99 11.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 11.0 Requirements Compliance Plan DRIVING Vehicle Requirements (VR) DRIVING Recovery System Requirements (RSR) DRIVING Experiment Requirements (ER) DRIVING Safety Requirements (SR) DRIVING General Requirements (GR) Derived Requirements 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 99

100 DRIVING Vehicle Requirements (VR) Examples Vehicle Requirements (VR) Verification Method STATUS Design Requirements Section Verification Details REQ# Description V IP NV The vehicle shall deliver the science or engineering payload Combination of the aerodynamics, as well as the thrust of an L-class As of the PDR, OpenRocket simulations of the leading VR1.1 to an apogee altitude of 5,280 motor selection and the weight of design will be sufficient feet above AGL the overall launch vehicle x enough. For the overall competition, flight tests shall be done to ensure accuracy 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 x of simulations Conducting launch tests shall result in a usable vehicle afterwards. The structures team shall design the structure to be robust and withstand impact loads Verification Method (1) Test (2) Analysis (3) Demonstration (4) Inspection V = Verified IP = In Progress NV = Not Verified 1 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 100

101 DRIVING Recovery System Requirements (RSR) Examples Recovery System Requirements Verification Method STATUS Design Requirements Section Verification Details REQ# Description V IP NV RSR2.1 The launch vehicle shall stage the deployment of its recovery Combination of piston ejection system and black powder activation Recovery testing will be done to determine the devices, where a drogue for main parachute deployment and x proper deployment of 1 parachute is deployed at apogee black powder for drogue parachutes and a main parachute is deployment RSR2.2 RSR2.3 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 At landing, each independent sections of the launch vehicle shall have a maximum kinetic Recovery tests and ejection tests done on 12/3/2016 for subscale and 2/4/2017 for full scale x Custom drogue parachute and custom main parachute x Results of the ground ejection test shall verify successful performance 1 Hand calculations and respective simulations to analyze kinetic energy Verification Method (1) Test (2) Analysis (3) Demonstration (4) Inspection V = Verified IP = In Progress NV = Not Verified 1 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 101

102 DRIVING Experiment Requirements (ER) Examples Experiment Requirements Option 2 Verification Method STATUS Design Requirements Section Verification Details REQ# Description V IP NV ER3.3 Roll induction and counter roll Teams shall design a system capable of RIS - A (Inertia Flywheel Design), RIS - B Inspection of payload ER3.3.1 controlling launch vehicle roll post motor (Fin Aileron Design), or RIS - C (Aerofan 6.1.1,6.1. operations and design to x x burnout. Design) will begin at post motor 2 function post burnout 1 burnout ER ER ER3.3.2 The systems shall first induce at least two rotations around the roll axis of the launch vehicle. 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. Teams shall not intentionally design a launch vehicle with a fixed geometry that can create a passive roll effect. 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 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 RIS - A (Inertia Flywheel Design), RIS - B (Fin Aileron Design), and RIS - C (Aerofan Design) are all passive effects x x x Testing of rolling moment Testing of rolling moment Inspection of chosen payload design Verification Method (1) Test (2) Analysis (3) Demonstration (4) Inspection V = Verified IP = In Progress NV = Not Verified 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

103 DRIVING Experiment Requirements (ER) Examples Experiment Requirements Option 3 Verification Method STATUS Design Requirements Section Verification Details REQ# Description V IP NV ER3.4 Fragile material protection Teams shall design a container capable of Alternative 1, 2, and 3 designs Different materials placed ER3.4.1 protecting an object of an unknown material accommodate for unknown sizes inside payload and x and of unknown size and shape. and shapes in the container determine if it survives a drop test 1 ER ER The object(s) shall survive throughout the entirety of the flight. 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. The usage of a soft material will allow for load absorption and the encasing device will secure the object in place Dimensions shall be larger than 3.5" in diameter and 6" in heightto accommodate the material x x x Materials placed inside payload shall survive during drop tests Inspection of design to fit the dimensions listed earlier Verification Method (1) Test (2) Analysis (3) Demonstration (4) Inspection V = Verified IP = In Progress NV = Not Verified /2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 103

104 DRIVING Safety Requirements (SR) Examples Safety Requirements Verification Method STATUS Design Requirements Section Verification Details REQ# Description V IP NV Each team shall use a launch and safety checklist. The final checklists shall be Safety Officer will create a checklist prior to FRR and At LRR, demonstration of the use of the checklist SR4.1 included in the FRR report and used during the Launch Readiness Review (LRR) and any LRR 7.1 launch day operations. x 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 Verification Method (1) Test (2) Analysis (3) Demonstration (4) Inspection V = Verified IP = In Progress NV = Not Verified 1 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 104

105 DRIVING General Requirements (GR) Examples General Requirements Verification Method STATUS Design Requirements Section Verification Details REQ# Description V IP NV The team shall engage a minimum of 200 participants in educational, hands-on science, Outreach Manager, Diran, will be in charge of Demonstration of education activities technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) planning activites with activities, as defined in the Educational over 200 students GR5.5 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 9 x found on page 28 of the handbook. 1 GR5.6 The team shall develop and host a Web site for project documentation. cpprocketry.net 1.4 x Inspection of website existence 1 Verification Method (1) Test (2) Analysis (3) Demonstration (4) Inspection V = Verified IP = In Progress NV = Not Verified 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 105

106 DRIVING Derived Requirements Examples Derived Requirements (DR) Verification Method STATUS Design Requirements Section Verification Details REQ# Description V IP NV DR1.0 Roll Maneuver must follow sequence of Roll Maneuver sequence of Payload tests will verify events: events outlined in Review that the sequence of DR1.0.1 Motor burn out documents and design the events are followed 1 DR1.0.2 On board instrumentation accounts for system to meet the events natural rotation of rocket 1 DR1.0.3 The roll system shall induce a moment to 6.4 x generate at least 2 full rotations 1 DR1.0.4 After full rotation, the roll system induces a moment to counter rotation 1 DR1.0.5 The system shall return the rocket to its initial rotation measured at rocket burnout 1 DR2.0 Ouline Safety Officer Responsibilities Generate a list of Inspection of the PDR 7.1 x responsibilities in PDR 1 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 Verification Method (1) Test (2) Analysis (3) Demonstration (4) Inspection V = Verified IP = In Progress NV = Not Verified 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 106

107 Probability of Success Initial Conceptual Design Trade Studies, Risk Mitigations, Planning Leading Designs High Confidence of Success 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 107

108 CPP NSL TEAM QUESTIONS? 11/2016 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR 108