Preliminary Design Review November 15, Agenda. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona W. Temple Ave, Pomona, CA 91768

Transcription

1 Preliminary Design Review November 15, 2017 Agenda California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 3801 W. Temple Ave, Pomona, CA 91768

2 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

3 Team Member Breakdown Cal Poly Pomona NASA Student Launch Initiative Educator Administrators Lead Engineer Casey Advisor Donald Edberg, PhD Deputy, Systems Engineer Megan Safety Officer Natalie Mentor Todd Coburn, PhD Aerodynamics Structures Payload L2 TRA Mentor Rick Maschek Aerodynamics Lead Daniel R. Structures Lead Edgar Payload Lead Richard Ryan Kevin Juan Vanessa Cory Praneeth Mauricio Priya Ricardo Andrew Isaac Courtney Verenice Jehosavat Daniel A. Leara 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

4 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

5 Agenda 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview o Vehicle Design and Dimensions o Vehicle Materials and Justifications o Launch Vehicle Components o CG, CP, and Stability Margin o Launch Parameters 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

6 Vehicle Design and Dimensions Overall length: 93 in (7 ft, 9in) Outer diameter: 6.16 in Inner diameter: 6.00 in Total weight: 46 lb 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

7 Material Trade Study Blue Tube 2.0 G12 Fiberglass Weaved Carbon Fiber Picture Picture Picture Pros Low cost ($17 per foot) Withstands Mach forces Lighter than Fiberglass (0.55lb) Cons Weakest compressive strength Requires weatherproofing treatment to avoid moisture effects Pros Stronger than Blue Tube 2.0 Easily machineable Ductile strength characteristics Cons High cost ($52 per foot) Heaviest of the three (1.30 lb) Pros Lightest of the three (0.40 lb) Strongest of the three Cons Most Expensive ($133 per foot) Brittle strength characteristics 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR *Comparisons made based on 1ft - 6 in. diameter section

8 Material Selection and Justification Body Tubes and Couplers Material: Blue Tube 2.0 High strength to weight ratio Cheaper than materials of comparable strength No manufacturing time required Comes in pre-made sizes for body tubes and couplers 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

9 Material Selection and Justification Centering Rings and Bulkheads Material: Birch Plywood Easy to work and finish Cost-effective and easily accessible Can be worked with hand tools and does not require special machinery 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

10 Material Selection and Justification Fasteners Material: High strength steel (4-40 Round Head Screws) Rounded heads reduce drag Full length threads reduce risk of thread pull out Can be machined down in length for various uses 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

11 Load Verification, Manufacturing, and Testing Analysis performed on key structural components: 1. Motor mount (F.S. = 5.5) 2. Payload bay mount (F.S. = 7.5) 3. Lower body tube section (F.S. = Large) Manufacturing methods include: Hand tooling and manual machining Testing: Extreme case simulation testing of in-flight stresses on the key components for each stage of flight Destructive testing to determine yield and ultimate stresses of materials with little know strength data. 3-D Printing CNC machining and laser cutting for more complex parts With the low cost of materials and manufacturing methods, multiple samples for parts of concern can be made for testing. 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

12 Agenda 2.1 Launch Vehicle Components o Nose Cone o Payload Fairing o Recovery Avionics Bay o Observation Bay o Fins 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

13 Nose Cone Trade Study Von Karman (LD Haack) Ellipsoid Conical Picture Picture Picture Pros Lowest coefficient of drag Highest stability Cons More complex shape Pros Moderate stability Rounded tip Cons Heaviest weight More material required Pros Basic simple shape Lightest weight Cons Highest coefficient of drag Lowest stability 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

14 Nose Cone Selected Design: Von Karman Lowest drag coefficient of 0.02 Made with PLA and Fiberglass Length of 12 inches Highest stability Moderate weight of 3.41 lbs 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

15 Nose Cone Selected Design: Von Karman Lowest drag coefficient of 0.02 Made with PLA and Fiberglass Length of 12 inches Highest stability Moderate weight of 3.41 lbs 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

16 Payload Fairing Located below nose cone Teeters to its side upon landing Hollowed bulkhead Plug ID opening: 4.7 in Covered by plug during flight 3D printed Friction fitted Protects payload during main parachute deployment Routing eyebolt connects plug to parachute lines in order to open 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

17 Recovery Avionics Bay Made of BlueTube 2.0 coupler 10.5 in. length OD: in. ID: in. Two bulkheads secured by two rods Two 0.5 in. holes will be drilled through the 2 in. collar to control flight electronics from the exterior 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

18 Recovery Avionics Bay Bulkheads secured by two threaded rods 3D printed avionics plate will hold altimeters 3D printed centering rings will secure the avionics plate 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

19 Observation Bay Design Raspberry Pi Zero v1.3 and Raspberry Pi Camera Module V2 Lightweight and compact observation bay design Quality video of desired length Little to no interference with aerodynamics or structural integrity of launch vehicle 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

20 Observation Bay Component Plate Dimensions 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

21 Observation Avionics Trade Study Raspberry Pi 3 Model B and Arducam OV5647 Raspberry Pi Zero v1.3 and Raspberry Pi Camera Module V2 Raspberry Pi 3 Model B and Raspberry Pi Camera Module V2 Pros: 1080p30 video Cons: Estimated cost ($85) Simple Setup Estimated weight (4.675 oz) Power requirements (400mA board only) Pros: Estimated cost ($69) 1080p30 video Estimated weight (3.775 oz) Power requirements (150mA board only) Cons: Complicated setup Pros: 1080p30 video Simple Setup Cons: Estimated cost ($93) Estimated weight (4.975 oz) Power requirements (400mA board only) 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

22 Fin Trade Study Clipped Delta Trapezoidal Grid Fins Picture Picture Picture Pros Low Cd Simplest Geometry Easy Integration Cons Thin design is inherently weak Pros Low Cd Relatively simple geometry Easy Integration Cons Thin design is inherently weak Pros Variable Cd Cons Most complex and difficult to implement 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

23 Leading Alternative: Clipped Delta Based on the trade study, the clipped delta represents the most suitable fin design for the rocket The clipped delta provided a desirable center of pressure NACA 0008 will be used Approximate weight : 1.67 lbs each (SolidWorks) 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

24 CP, CG, and Static Stability Margin From Open Rocket Model: Center of Gravity: in Center of Pressure: in Stability Margin: 2.04 Calibers Method of Calculations: Center of Gravity: Using Geometric Equations Center of Pressure: Using Barrowman Equations 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

25 Stability Margin Subsequent changes made affecting stability: Repositioning payload bay underneath nose cone Original Design Static Margin: 2.37 Calibers Leading Design Static Margin: 2.04 Calibers Δ Static Margin =.33 Calibers Original Design Leading Design 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

26 Preliminary Motor Selection Requirements Vehicle Requirements met: Deliver payload to 5,280 ft (as defined by SOW) Recoverable and reusable Limited to a single stage Use of a commercially available solid motor using APCP propellant Staying below 5120 N-s limit (L-Class Motors) Minimum exit velocity of 52 ft/s 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

27 Motor Selection Trade Study Alternative #1: Cesaroni L1115 Average Thrust: N Maximum Thrust:1713.0N Total impulse: Ns Burn Time: 4.5s Isp:241s Alternative 2: Aerotech L1120 Average Thrust: N Maximum Thrust:1794.0N Total impulse: Ns Burn Time: 4.4s Isp:181s Pros: Higher Impulse (greater fuel useage) Flatter Burn Slope (Better Nozzle Util.) More affordable casing Cons: Approaching MECO, sudden loss of thrust Pros: Longer Burn time Expected less drag over burn time. Cons: Lower ISP, expensive, not readily available 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

28 Preliminary Motor Selection Leading Alternative Leading Alternative: Cesaroni Technology L1115 solid motor 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

29 Preliminary Motor Selection Characteristics Motor Thrust Curve: Justification: Increased Structural Stability: Descending burn slope means that drag may reduce as launch vehicle approaches MECO. Better Nozzle Utilization Due to the flatter burn slope throughout 4.1 seconds of burn time. 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

30 Preliminary Motor Selection Maximum G-force at MGLOW: 7.4G Apogee Ranges: OpenRocket: 5,830ft ( 0 mph winds) Excel: 5,630 ft ft (Light and Heavy Vehicle estimates +10%) MATLAB: ft (baseline measurement) 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

31 Launch Parameters Thrust to Weight Ratio (T/W) = 5.48 Rail Exit Velocity (assuming MGLOW) = 39 lbs. Using the 8 ft rails: V = ft/s Using the 12 ft rails: V = 63.91ft/s 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

32 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

33 Agenda 3.0 Recovery Subsystem o Recovery Avionics o Recovery Avionics Bay o Deployment Charge o Altimeter Layout and Redundancy o Recovery Data Collection (DCS) System o Drogue Parachute o Main Parachute o Safe Decent Analysis o Kinetic Energy Calculations 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

34 Recovery Avionics: GPS Trade Study Eggfinder TeleGPS Telemetrum Pros Low cost Ready to run out of box Cons Soldering required Pros Fair software Cons Higher cost License Required Pros Superior Software Cons Requires purchase of multiple units to operate Highest cost 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

35 Leading Alternative: Eggfinder Cost Efficient License Free Uplink Easy receiver and ground system integration Simple startup and shutdown Small footprint 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

36 Recovery Avionics: Altimeter Trade Study Missile Works RRC2+ Missile Works RRC3 PerfectFlite StratologgerCF Pros Battery Voltage Output Cons Records peak altitude only Pros Wide range of data collection Data can be streamed Cons Weight Requires a flight computer for streaming capabilities Pros Programmable Main Deployment Cons Data must be downloaded to computer via cable 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

37 Leading Alternative: StratologgerCF Ample data acquisition including battery voltage Programmable main chute deployment altitude in one foot increments Minimal learning curve Easy to integrate Cost Efficient Small footprint High dependability 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

38 Recovery Subsystem Designed to meet requirement 3.3. Each independent section will land with a kinetic energy of under 75 ft lbf. Dual deployment altimeters will be utilized to ensure parachute deployment Descent rate after parachute deployment optimized to meet 2500 ft recovery radius requirement 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

39 Recovery Bay Overview Recovery Bay houses: 2 Stratologger CF s 2 9 Volt Batteries 4 Black Powder wells and charges 2 Rotary Switches 4 E - matches Isolation from other electronics ensures the altimeters will not experience interference 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

40 Deployment Charge There are a total of 4 charges located on rocket 2 for the Drogue Parachute 2 for the Main Parachute 4F Black Powder will be used Charge sized calculated taking into account changes in bay size. Main parachute has Calculations need to be verified using ground tests. Charges will be optimized to ensure proper ejection Ignition method : E match 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

41 Altimeter Layout and Redundancy Two StratoLogger CF s will be utilized - a primary and back up Both altimeters will have their own power supply and pair of E matches Independent operation of backup unit ensures redundancy Redundancy ensures mission success 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

42 Recovery Avionics: Data Collection System GPS data shared in real time with ground station Data can be imported into a mapping service for instant rocket location Flight data from altimeters will be downloaded onto ground station after each flight 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

43 Drogue Parachute Trade Study Hemispherical with spill hole Cruciform/Cross Toroidal Picture Picture Picture Pros Light weight Less material Cons Lowest coefficient of drag Lowest stability Pros Moderate coefficient of drag Maximum stability Cons More material required Pros Highest coefficient of drag Cons More shroud lines, likely to tangle 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

44 Drogue Leading Alternative: Cruciform/Cross Will be manufactured by the team using Mil-spec 1.1 oz ripstop nylon Simple design with maximum stability Manufacturing procedures will ensure a durable parachute Diameter size of 4 ft Surface Area of 9 ft 2 Coefficient of drag of 0.6 Weight of 5.5 oz 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

45 Main Parachute Trade Study Toroidal Hemispherical Flat Sheet Pros Highest coefficient of drag Lightest and smallest Cons Two sets of shroud lines Pros Less shroud lines Moderate stability Cons Heaviest Low drag coefficient Pros Easy to manufacture Less likely to drift Cons Weaker material Low drag coefficient 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

46 Main Parachute Leading Alternative: Toroidal Will be manufactured by Fruity Chutes using Mil-spec 1.1 oz ripstop nylon Lightweight, has the smallest packing dimensions Diameter size of 10 ft Coefficient of drag of 2.2 Weight of 36 oz 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

47 Safe Decent Analysis: Drift Distance Calculations Using vector analysis and OpenRocket simulations, the drift distances for wind speeds up to 20 mph were calculated Results: Ideal descent rate with drogue was determined to be 90 ft/s to conform with requirement 3.9 (2500 ft recovery radius). Main parachute deployment altitude has been determined to be 400 ft. Both Vector Analysis and OpenRocket simulation verify the design will not exceed past the radius Vector Analysis Drift Calculations OpenRocket Sim Drift Calculations Tests will be conducted for further optimization 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

48 Kinetic Energy Calculations Kinetic Energy per module constrained by requirement 3.3 Main parachute dimensions defined by lowest max allowable velocity (Module 3). Max allowable velocity to stay below 75 ft-lb Module Mass (slugs) Max allowable velocity (ft/s) Module 1 : Nose Cone + Payload Fairing Module 2: Main Parachute Bay + Drogue Parachute Bay + Recovery Bay Module 3: Observation Bay + Motor Bay /15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

49 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

50 Agenda 4.0 Payload Experiment Design o Payload System Level Trade Study o Payload Design Leading Alternative o Deployment System Level Trade Study o Deployment System Leading Alternative o Solar Panel Deployment Trade Study o Solar Panel Deployment Leading Alternative 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

51 Deployment Autonomous Rover and Integrated Collector (DARIC) This compact design reduces the size of the payload bay. The simple design promotes an easy assembly. Pros: o o o o Cons: o o Increased stability and traction Effective solar panel integration Feasible manufacturing Light weight Low maneuverability Low speed 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

52 Multi-Gear Track Rover (MGTR) This designs low center of gravity increases its stability. The cased body provides extra protection for electrical components. Pros: o o o Cons: o o o Increased power Increased stability and traction Increased protection for hardware Low maneuverability due to tracks Complex manufacturing Increased weight 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

53 Multi-Axial Rover System (MARS) The multi-axial wheels provide better maneuverability. Solar panels can be easily mounted on the Rover body. Pros: o o o Cons: o o o o Increased speed Increased maneuverability Effective solar panel integration Complex manufacturing Increased weight Decreased stability/traction High power supply needed 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

54 Rover Design Trade Study DARIC MGTR MARS Pros: Increased stability and traction Effective solar panel integration Feasible manufacturing Light weight Cons: Low maneuverability Lower speed Pros: Increased power Increased stability and traction Increased protection for hardware Cons: Low maneuverability due to tracks Complex manufacturing Increased weight Pros: Increased speed Increased maneuverability Effective solar panel integration Cons: Complex manufacturing Increased weight Decreased stability/traction High power supply needed 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

55 Leading Alternative: DARIC Compact design reduces payload bay size Open top allows for effective Solar Panel deployment systems integration Lightweight Components reduces overall payload weight Simple Manufacturing Method Component Mass (lbm) Rover Chassis Upper Surface Lower Surface 0.03 Total 0.18 DARIC: Deployable Autonomous Rover and Integrated Collector Challenges: Electrical systems integration will be limited to vehicles size. 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

56 System Protection Orientation Correction (SPOC) Pendulum (SPOC) uses mass of rover to correct its orientation to prepare the rover for landing Pros Simple concept/not prone to failure Simple production and assembly Primarily mechanical system Cons In the event that the launch vehicle lands vertically, the rover may not deploy System prone may be hindered by parachute depending on landing 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

57 Tetrahedron Tri-Axial Deployment System (T-TADS) Shell encasing the rover, which will open up to allow the rover to begin moving Pros Self correcting system Doesn t need to be attached to the launch vehicle Cons Difficult to manufacture Need for extra electrical systems Prone to failures Expensive 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

58 Deployment Systems Trade Study SPOC T-TADS: Tetrahedron Tri- Axial Deployment System Pros Simple concept/not prone to failure Simple production and assembly Primarily mechanical system Cons Rover may not land in correct orientation Risk of being caught on parachute Pros Self correcting system Doesn t need to be attached to the launch vehicle Cons Difficult to manufacture Need for extra electrical systems Prone to failures Expensive 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

59 Leading Alternative: SPOC Self-correction allowing for accurate deployment orientation Risks mitigated by simple design Challenges: Integration with recovery system of launch vehicle Preventing rover from detaching from carriage Self-Correcting Pendulum Deployment System 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

60 Rotary Servo Spring Deployment (RSSD) Uses a rotary servo to release the pressure applied by springs on the interactive surfaces. Pros o o o Cons o o Simple Design Light Weight Instant Deployment Single-action deployment Initial impulse from spring causes forced deployment 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

61 Linear Servo Linkage (LSL) Uses a linear servo to interact with a linkage system for extending and retracting the solar panels. Pros o o Cons o o o Multi-action deployment Secure Deployment Multiple Components Complex Design Linear Servo 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

62 Rotary Servo Linkage System (RSLS) Uses a rotary servo to interact with a linkage system for extending and retracting the solar panels. The rotary servo is lighter and smaller than the linear servo. Pros o o o Cons o o Multi-action deployment Rotary Servo Secure Deployment Multiple Components Complex Design 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

63 Solar Panel Deployment System Trade Study RSSD LSL RSLS Pros Simple Design Light Weight Instant Deployment Rotary Servo Cons Single-action deployment Pros Multi-action deployment Secure Deployment Cons Multiple Components Linear Servo Complex Design Pros Multi-action deployment Secure Deployment Rotary Servo Cons Multiple Components 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

64 Leading Alternative: RSSD Lightweight components reduces overall weight of payload. Simple and cost effective installation because of the amount of parts. Challenges: Securing the solar panels Preventing system failures Component Mass (lbm) Stainless Steel Torsion Springs 0.26 Micro Rotating Servo 0.02 Deployment control surfaces 0.03 Total /15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

65 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration & Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

66 Agenda 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration & Interfaces o Avionics Integration o Payload Hardware Interface o Payload to Ground Interface o Fin Integration o Payload Interface 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

67 Avionics Integration Payload Data Control System (DCS) Software Overview Will be a self-contained system Designed to gather, store, and transmit data, while also carrying out its mission. This will be done through the use of non-blocking libraries used in c++ or in python. For example, the thread and boost libraries will perform the act of moving the rover around or deploying the solar panels while also running looped data collection statements like that of the GPS acquisition or the Video Feed acquisition system Using the newest noobs (Raspberry Pi OS) software Using a built in IDE in the Raspberry Pi Geany, BlueJ, Ninja 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

68 Avionics Integration Software Sequence Flowchart 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

69 Avionics Integration Payload Streaming Devices Video Transmission An RPi Camera will be plugged into the connection jack on the side and will transmit video feed data to an SD card on the RPi so it can be used as proof This video Transmission would run autonomously and separate from the rest of the rover s sequence and would be activated at the start of the PI GPS Data As per the NSL rules, each rover is required to have a GPS data being streamed back to the ground station Transceiver data The transceiver on the rover will be very crucial in the process of starting the sequence At the start of the program, an infinite loop will run true and complete no process A physical trigger as described in the NSL handbook will render that loop false and start the code to run 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

70 Payload Hardware Interface Payload Experiment Avionics System UART connection to receive GPS data (onboard data logging) Video feed via RPi video connection. Stored on micro sd on RPi PWM signal to control servos via GPIO Transceiver to send GPS data and receive control commands via 900 MHz signal Video transmitter to send live feed to ground station via 5.8 GHz signal 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

71 Payload Hardware Interface Payload Data Control System Hardware Overview Using a Raspberry Pi Zero along with an XBee Shield plugged in on top of the 40 pin connector This XBee Shield tremendously increases the ease at which to write code, execute it and understand it Using a Raspberry Pi 8 MegaPixel camera board v2 along with its own jack that connects right into the Pi Using a Seeedstudio 433MHz RF Long Distance Transmitter / Receiver Pair This pair will give and receive data to the ground station Using a Adafruit Ultimate GPS Breakout - 66 channel w/10 Hz updates - Version 3 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

72 Payload Hardware Interface Hardware Sequence Flowchart 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

73 Payload to Ground Interface Ground Station Avionics System Video receiver to gather live video feed via 5.8 GHz signal Transceiver to receive GPS data and send control commands via 900 MHz signal GUI to provide visuals and means of communication with rover All received data to be stored on external storage drive 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

74 Fin Integration 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

75 Fin Integration End centering rings (A and D) on the end will be tapped and threaded to accommodate bolts 1/4 inch steel bolts ensure a tight mate Middle centering rings (B and C) will interface with the fin via a tongue and groove fitting Implementation of a tight friction fit will prevent unwanted movement and oscillation 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

76 Fin Integration Assembly shielded by body tube Slots in body tube allow the fin & motor tube assembly to be removed from launch vehicle in a convenient manner Centering rings and fins can be rapidly replaced in case of repairs 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

77 Payload Interface SPOC System Only mechanical interfaces SPOC system will be bolted to launch vehicle structure Lock pin will be tethered to drogue chute door All electronics are self contained on rover 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

78 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

79 Agenda 6.0 Launch Vehicle and Recovery Summary o Launch Vehicle Summary o Recovery Avionics Summary 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

80 Launch Vehicle Summary 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

81 Launch Vehicle Summary Center of Gravity from nose: in Center of Pressure from nose: in Stability Margin: 2.04 Calibers 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

82 Recovery Avionics Summary Two Perfectflite StratologgerCF altimeters will be run in parallel to ensure redundancy Each altimeter will be integrated into drogue and main chute deployment systems Eggfinder GPS transmitter and receiver modules will be integrated into flight vehicle and ground station 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

83 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

84 Agenda 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview o Flight Profile o Mission Performance o Flight Simulations 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

85 Flight Profile Overview Ascent Phase: Roughly seconds to reach Apogee Apogee (OpenRocket estimation): ~( )ft. Accounts for wind conditions (0-20 mph) Descent Phase: Drogue Release: At max apogee using altimeters Main Release: 400 ft AGL 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

86 Flight Profile Overview Drift Calculations: (using OpenRocket software and assuming 10% turbulence) 0 mph = 10 ft 5 mph = 410 ft 10 mph = 885 ft 15 mph = 1875 ft 20 mph = 2211 ft Software verifies the rocket will meet the mission requirements 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

87 Mission Performance Rail Exit Velocity: 8ft 1010 rails: ft/s 12 ft 1515 rails: ft/s Max Velocity: ~ ( ) ft/s Kinetic Energy at Various Max Velocity (625 ft/s) = ~ 8,984,375 Drogue Parachute Release (90 ft/s) = ~ 157,950 Main Parachute Release (14.3 ft/s) = ~ 3987 Touchdown (Module1,2,3) (13 ft/s) = ~ 823 ft-lbs, 748 ft-lbs, 1854 ft-lbs 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

88 Flight Simulations Current altitude predictions at various air speeds were completed using OpenRocket simulation Simulations currently predict a maximum altitude of 5854 ft Simulated altitudes will be compared with future full-scale test launch results 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

89 Flight Simulation Apogee (ft) Max Velocity (ft/s) Max Acceleration (ft/s2) Time to Apogee (s) Total Flight Time (s) /15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

90 Flight Simulation Apogee (ft) Max Velocity (ft/s) Max Acceleration (ft/s2) Time to Apogee (s) Total Flight Time (s) /15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

91 Flight Simulation Results Wind Speed (mph) Apogee (ft) Time to Apogee (sec) Maximum altitude for each case was slightly above required altitude of 5280 ft. Wind velocity did not greatly impact the flight profile due to the launch vehicle s stability 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

92 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

93 Agenda 8.0 Safety and Risk Management o Safety Officer Identification and Responsibilities o Failure Modes and Effects Analysis 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

94 Safety and Risk Management Responsibilities: Safety plans addressing: Materials Facilities Launch Safety briefings addressing: Subscale launches Full-scale launches Safety Officer: Natalie Aparicio 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

95 Risk Assessment Code Likelihood Catastrophic Critical Marginal 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 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

96 Risk Level Assessments 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 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

97 Failure Modes and Effects Example Hazard Cause Effect Pre-Mitigation RAC Pre-Risk Mitigation Post-Mitigation Failure to meet CDR deadline Insufficient maturity in design since PDR Unable to pass CDR Review with go ahead to test launch full-scale launch vehicle 1D Moderate Implement systems engineering techniques to organize launch vehicle and payload 3E Drogue or main parachute fails to deploy Black powder charges fail to ignite Irreparable damage to launch vehicle, its component 1B High Redundant black powder charges, altimeters, and e- matches 2E Launch Poorly installed Launch vehicle 2E Low Follow NAR safety guide 4E vehicle e-match will not launch lines, waiting a minimum of motor fails 60 seconds before to ignite approaching launch vehicle 97

98 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

99 Agenda 9.0 Outreach o Prospective Plan o Prospective Schools 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

100 Prospective Plan There are currently three different options of educational engagement with K-12 students. First Option - Educational/Direct: Propulsion and Drag Second Option - Educational/Direct: Programming Third Option - Outreach/Direct: Recovery Avionics/Propulsion System 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

101 Prospective Plan Propulsion and Drag The first option involves an educational/direct interaction where students learn about propulsion and drag. This event will include a lecture and a hands-on activity where the students will use a variety of parachutes and timers to see how different dimensions will affect those two concepts. 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

102 Prospective Plan Programming The second option involves another educational/direct interaction where students will participate in programming exercises at school. We will give a lecture on how programming can bring projects to life and have the students solve real-life applications through coding. At the end of the presentation, we will demonstrate how our payload experiment works with its integration into the launch vehicle by bringing the Raspberry Pi Zero. 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

103 Prospective Plan Recovery Avionics and Propulsion System The third option involves an outreach/direct interaction where the team makes a field trip to the designated school and gives a PowerPoint Presentation about structural components behind the rocket, specifically with the propulsion system and recovery avionics. Towards the end of the presentation, a premade rocket will be launched to showcase the material from the classroom into action. 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

104 Prospective Schools International Polytechnic High School (ipoly) Leonard G. Westhoff Elementary School Suzanne Middle School Walnut High School 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

105 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

106 Budget Plan 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

107 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

108 Gantt Chart & Important Milestones I 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

109 Gantt Chart & Important Milestones II 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

110 Gantt Chart & Important Milestones III 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

111 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

112 Requirements Compliance Matrices 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

113 Requirements Compliance Matrices The requirements compliance matrices for the CPP NASA Student Launch follows from the NASA Student Launch College and University Handbook: General Compliance Matrix Launch Vehicle Compliance Matrix Recovery System Compliance Matrix Payload Experiment Compliance Matrix Safety Compliance Matrix 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

114 8.1.1 General Compliance Matrix 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

115 8.1.2 Launch Vehicle Compliance Matrix 115

116 8.1.3 Recovery System Compliance Matrix 116

117 8.1.4 Payload Experiment Compliance Matrix 117

118 8.1.5 Safety Compliance Matrix 118

119 Agenda 1.0 General Information 2.0 Launch Vehicle System Overview 3.0 Recovery Subsystem 4.0 Payload Experiment Design 5.0 Launch Vehicle Integration and Interfaces 6.0 Summary of Launch Vehicle Subsystems 8.0 Safety and Risk Management 9.0 Outreach 10.0 Budget Plan 11.0 Timeline 12.0 Requirements Compliance Plan 13.0 Probability of Success 7.0 Flight and Mission Overview 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

120 Probability of Success Capabilities Requirements Plan Execution Risk Mitigation and Management 11/15/2017 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona PDR

121 Thank you, CPP NSL TEAM Questions?