Illinois Space Society Flight Readiness Review. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign NASA Student Launch March 30, 2016

Similar documents
Critical Design Review

FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW TEAM OPTICS

Flight Readiness Review

CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW. University of South Florida Society of Aeronautics and Rocketry

Auburn University. Project Wall-Eagle FRR

Georgia Tech NASA Critical Design Review Teleconference Presented By: Georgia Tech Team ARES

NASA SL - NU FRONTIERS. PDR presentation to the NASA Student Launch Review Panel

CRITICAL DESIGN PRESENTATION

Jordan High School Rocketry Team. A Roll Stabilized Video Platform and Inflatable Location Device

Presentation Outline. # Title # Title

Presentation Outline. # Title

Auburn University Student Launch. PDR Presentation November 16, 2015

NASA - USLI Presentation 1/23/2013. University of Minnesota: USLI CDR 1

Flight Readiness Review Addendum: Full-Scale Re-Flight. Roll Induction and Counter Roll NASA University Student Launch.

Project NOVA

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Illinois Space Society Student Launch Preliminary Design Review November 3, 2017

NASA SL Critical Design Review

Wichita State Launch Project K.I.S.S.

GIT LIT NASA STUDENT LAUNCH PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW NOVEMBER 13TH, 2017

Illinois Space Society University of Illinois Urbana Champaign Student Launch Maxi-MAV Preliminary Design Review November 5, 2014

NUMAV. AIAA at Northeastern University

NASA USLI PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW. University of California, Davis SpaceED Rockets Team

PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW

Preliminary Design Review. California State University, Long Beach USLI November 13th, 2017

NASA s Student Launch Initiative :

Critical Design Review Report

Preliminary Design Review. Cyclone Student Launch Initiative

University of Notre Dame

Tacho Lycos 2017 NASA Student Launch Flight Readiness Review

Student Launch. Enclosed: Preliminary Design Review. Submitted by: Rocket Team Project Lead: David Eilken

Tacho Lycos 2017 NASA Student Launch Critical Design Review

The University of Toledo

Tripoli Rocketry Association Level 3 Certification Attempt

UC Berkeley Space Technologies and Rocketry Preliminary Design Review Presentation. Access Control: CalSTAR Public Access

Presentation 3 Vehicle Systems - Phoenix

NASA SL Flight Readiness Review

Flight Readiness Review March 16, Agenda. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona W. Temple Ave, Pomona, CA 91768

University Student Launch Initiative

Team Air Mail Preliminary Design Review

Overview. Mission Overview Payload and Subsystems Rocket and Subsystems Management

Critical Design Review Report NASA Student Launch Florida International University American Society of Mechanical Engineers (FIU-ASME)

AUBURN UNIVERSITY STUDENT LAUNCH PROJECT NOVA II. 211 Davis Hall AUBURN, AL CDR

CNY Rocket Team Challenge. Basics of Using RockSim 9 to Predict Altitude for the Central New York Rocket Team Challenge

NASA Student Launch W. Foothill Blvd. Glendora, CA Artemis. Deployable Rover. November 3rd, Preliminary Design Review

Statement of Work Requirements Verification Table - Addendum

Pegasus II. Tripoli Level 3 Project Documentation. Brian Wheeler

NASA USLI Flight Readiness Review (FRR) Rensselaer Rocket Society (RRS)

Notre Dame Rocketry Team. Flight Readiness Review March 8, :00 PM CST

PROJECT AQUILA 211 ENGINEERING DRIVE AUBURN, AL POST LAUNCH ASSESSMENT REVIEW

LEVEL 3 BUILD YELLOW BIRD. Dan Schwartz

NASA Student Launch College and University. Preliminary Design Review

Critical Design Review

Flight Readiness Review Report NASA Student Launch Florida International University American Society of Mechanical Engineers (FIU-ASME)

Florida A & M University. Flight Readiness Review. 11/19/2010 Preliminary Design Review

USLI Flight Readiness Review

Northwest Indian College Space Center USLI Critical Design Review

Rocket Design. Tripoli Minnesota Gary Stroick. February 2010

Critical Design Review

The University of Toledo

Project WALL-Eagle Maxi-Mav Flight Readiness Review

Preliminary Design Review

NASA SL Preliminary Design Review

Madison West High School Green Team

Pre-Flight Checklist for SLIPSTICK III

Rocketry Projects Conducted at the University of Cincinnati

USLI Critical Design Report

Project WALL-Eagle Maxi-Mav Critical Design Review

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

Student Launch. Enclosed: Proposal. Submitted by: Rocket Team Project Lead: David Eilken. Submission Date: September 30, 2016

267 Snell Engineering Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

University Student Launch Initiative

AUBURN UNIVERSITY STUDENT LAUNCH. Project Nova. 211 Davis Hall AUBURN, AL Post Launch Assessment Review

To determine which number of fins will enable the Viking Model Rocket to reach the highest altitude with the largest thrust (or fastest speed.

SpaceLoft XL Sub-Orbital Launch Vehicle

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA FROZEN FURY CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW REPORT NASA STUDENT LAUNCH 2015

Cornell Rocketry Team. NASA Student Launch Competition CORNELL ROCKETRY TEAM

Cal Poly Pomona Rocketry NASA Student Launch Competition POST LAUNCH ASSESMENT REVIEW April 24, 2017

Strap-on Booster Pods

First Nations Launch Rocket Competition 2016

Rover Delivery NASA University Student Launch Initiative Post-Launch Assessment Review. Charger Rocket Works.

University of North Dakota Department of Physics Frozen Fury Rocketry Team

Critical Design Review

University Student Launch Initiative Preliminary Design Review

By: Georgia Institute of Technology Team Autonomous Rocket Equipment System (A.R.E.S.) Georgia Institute of Technology North Avenue NW Atlanta GA,

University of South Florida

York College of Pennsylvania NASA Student Launch Preliminary Design Report

Electronic Deployment

HPR Staging & Air Starting By Gary Stroick

Tuskegee University Rocketry Club

ADVANCED MODEL ROCKET

UC Berkeley Space Technologies and Rocketry NASA Student Launch Proposal Project Arktos. 432 Eshleman Hall, MC 4500 Berkeley, CA

ISS Space Grant Team Exocoetidae

Modified shock-cord mount and cables (cables are shown pushed into motor mount here)

Post Launch Assessment Review

Bumble Bee. Please read and understand all instructions before building!

COMPLETED MIRAGE ADVANCED MODEL ROCKET

ADVANCED MODEL ROCKET

Information Pack for Mid Power Rockets

NWIC Space Center s 2017 First Nations Launch Achievements

Transcription:

Illinois Space Society Flight Readiness Review University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign NASA Student Launch 2015-2016 March 30, 2016

Team Managers Project Manager: Ian Charter Structures and Recovery Manager: Stephen Vrkljan AGSE Manger: Benjamin Collins Safety Officer: Andrew Koehler

System Overview

Vehicle Criteria

Vehicle Dimensions Overall vehicle length: 90.5 Nose cone length: 19.75 -Shoulder: 3.25 Length of parachute compartments: -Drogue: 13 -Main: 16 Booster system length: 40.75 -Booster body tube length: 40.25

Vehicle Dimensions Upper airframe body length: 26.1 Airframe tubing OD: 4.014 Coupler: 15.5 -Coupler tube: 15" -Switch band: 7.1 -Shoulder: 3.9 Exterior Payload Hole: 6 L X 2 W Interior Payload Hole: 6 L X 1.5 W

Booster Subsystem Includes: -Motor, fin, and rail button subsystems -Blue Tube construction -40.75 length, 4.014 outer diameter Functionality: -Ascent stage of flight -Houses motor assembly -Mounting point for rail buttons -Fins constructed of fiberglass create stability

Motor Selection and Justification Motor: Aerotech K1000T-P Highly reputable Team experience Quickly reaches maximum thrust Rail exit velocity of 74.5 ft/s Meets target altitude Thrust to weight: 10.69

Motor Subsystem cont. Centering Rings - Ensures motor mount tube and casing are centered - Three rings composed of plywood Motor Retainer - High strength aluminum - Prevents motor from moving forward or aft during flight - Employs a body and screw cap design - Permanently affixed to lower centering ring

Fins: Fin Subsystem - Provides aerodynamic restoring force - 3 trapezoidal fins spaced 120 degrees apart - Fiberglass construction - Root chord: 11.8 - Tip chord: 6.25 - Height: 5.25 - Sweep Length: 4.5 - Thickness: 0.25 - Attached between centering rings -Fin tab height of 0.457

Rail Button Subsystem Rail Buttons: - Holds vehicle to rail during first stage of flight - 1515 standard rail buttons - Designed for a 1.5 slotted rail - Secured to vehicle s centering rings - Mounted via a plywood block with T-nut for removability

Includes: Recovery Subsystem -Parachutes (main and drogue) -Parachute ejection charges -Attachment hardware -Avionics bay with altimeters -1 Telemetrum & 1 Stratologger Functionality: -Most important for safety of flight -Must properly deploy both parachutes -Armed through switches on exterior of rocket -Isolated environment for recovery electronics

Recovery Subsystem Drogue Parachute - Fruity Chutes 15 elliptical parachute - Deployed at apogee -Backup 2 seconds after - Stowed in booster tube Main Parachute - Iris Ultra 60 Parachute - Deployed at 550 AGL -Backup at 450 AGL -Stowed in upper airframe

Robustness of Recovery Subsystem Includes: - Zinc Plated U-bolt attachments - Steel quick links - 0.5, tubular, Kevlar shock cords (520,000 psi) - Ripstop nylon parachutes Functionality: - U-bolt to withstand loadings - Quick links sealed with threaded cap for robust sealing - Safely return all components with less than 75 ft-lbf of KE upon impact

Payload Containment Payload will be attached to hatch door and placed on rocket Hatch will be guided and held via 4 side magnets Mortice latches will lock hatch into place Thin tab and holes will be added to allow for removal Payload section isolated from rest of coupler - No damage in unlikely event gripper loses payload

Upper Airframe Subsystem Contains main parachute and main parachute shock cord during flight Polypropylene plastic nosecone -Lightweight -Aerodynamic ogive shape -Team experience with material

Test Plans and Procedures Dimensions and weights verified on arrival of components Components and hardware inspected for quality and manually load tested Electronics and connections tested and inspected Parachute pull test Hatch door lock mechanisms will be tested for durability and functionality Integration with AGSE system - Loading vehicle on rail, inserting hatch, erecting launch pad, and inserting igniter Full scale test flight

Staged Recovery System Testing Plan Ejection charges and parachutes loaded in the same manner as on launch day Ballast mass used to replace fragile components Setup to allow remote deploy: wire E-match remote firing system Shear pins determined by actual weight and predicted accelerations Electronic testing: power lifetime, functionality, and interference

Ejection Charge and Shear Pin Testing 1. Number of shear pins chosen based on expected forces 2. Safety margin of ~1.5 applied 3. Then determined black powder sizes to break shear pins Joint Grams of Black Powder (Main) Drogue 1.5 2 Main 2 3 Number of Shear Pins

Launch Vehicle Verification and Overview Verification implemented through: - Simulations - Full Scale Test Flight - Inspection - Rigorous ground testing of hatch door, recovery equipment, AGSE integration Overview: Combination of simulations and Hand Calculations to solve for the following -Velocity predictions -Altitude verifications -Kinetic energy predictions -Drift -Descent rates -Launch rail exit velocity

Launch Vehicle Verification: Mass Statement Ballast added following construction Total mass predicted with component breakdown Using manufacturer specs. or prior measurements Mass prediction: 22.51lbs ~1lb below CDR design mass Mass Breakdown: Booster: 13.3 lbs Coupler: 4.7 lbs Upper Airframe: 3.5 lbs Total Mass: 21.5 lbs Limited future mass growth

Static Stability Margin cont. Stability Margin: (Cp-Cg)/D Recommended: 2-2.5 <1, Under stable >>2, Over stable Constructed Value: 2.04 Calibers Locations: Marked on Booster Tube Cp: 71.3 from nosecone Cg: 63.1 from nosecone

Launch Vehicle Verification: Flight Profile Simulated at average wind speed (10 mph) Predicted Apogees: OpenRocket: 5,360 ft. Custom Sim: 5,370 ft. Wind speed negligibly affects apogee Simulations agree on a time to apogee of 17.3 s Drag parameters adjusted to increase accuracy

Full Scale Test Flight Completed March 18 th Flew fully loaded vehicle without operational hatch Upward stability was optimal Apogee at 5472ft Recovery Events occurred as designed Used 20 Drogue for test flight Iris Ultra took a few seconds to fully deploy Photo taken by Greg Smith, CIA

Full Scale Test Flight Results

Full Scale Test Flight Results

Full Scale Test Flight Results

Main Deployment

Launch Vehicle Verification: Kinetic Energy Test Flight Kinetic Energy Upon Landing: Booster 61.2 ft*lbf Coupler 29.2 ft*lbf Upper Airframe 21.6 ft*lbf No vehicle section is expected to approach 75 ft-lbf of kinetic energy Terminal Descent Rates: Drogue (safe under 100 ft/s): Simulated (15 ): 91.6 ft/s Hand Calculation (15 ): 88.3 ft/s Test Flight (20 ): 80 ft/s Main (safe between 10-25 ft/s): Simulated: 18.7 ft/s Hand Calculation: 18.4 ft/s Test Flight: 20 ft/s

Launch Vehicle Verification: Drift Drift predictions done with a 0 degree launch angle as specified by NASA All distances are well within 2,500 ft. limit Worst case real flight scenario still results in satisfactory drift of 2,490 ft. 5 degree launch angle, along 20 mph winds Wind Speed [mph] 0 7 Open Rocket Prediction [ft] 5 312.5 10 675 15 1,125 20 1,600

AGSE

2 Stepper Motors 360 degree rotation 4 steel turntable Chain 1 x1 x2 aluminum 1 x1 square aluminum plate Wooden shelf below for electronics 14 reach Carbon fiber makeup Vertical and horizontal arms 1 square tubes Horizontal arm 20 length 0.25 x2 crane rods 40 length Pulley system Crane System

Electromagnet Hatch door Blue Tube 0.03 lbs PLA plastic clips Magnets at corners Steel strip 3 x1 x0.10 0.02 lbs Guide piece - arc of steel above Blue Tube 0.20 lb Mortice latches Hatch and Clip

Requires 12 V Needs to be switched on and off Run through relay Relay controlled by Arduino 2 x1 3 8 x1 Electromagnet

Rail System 18 Stroke 12 Volt DC Motor 0.60 Inches per Second Tip placed 20.1 along rail Base placed 4.6 in front of the hinge 24.25 below base plate

Maximum force required 82.75 lb Rest length at 28.8 Extended length of 39.1 Gives 5 off vertical Approximate runtime of 17 seconds 8 rail of 80/20 aluminum 10.8 lb Center of mass (C.O.M.) 4 Weight of rocket is 22.51 lb Combined gives C.O.M. to be 41.6 from the pad end of the system Rail System Cont.

35 lb. Force 5 degree angle 12 Volt DC Motor 24 stroke 25 light wooden rod 0.60 inches per second 40 second runtime Guide funnel Ignition System

3 cell LiPo battery 2 Stepper motors Motor Controllers 2 Linear Actuators 2 LEDs 2 Limit Switches 1 Relay Pause Switch Master Kill Switch Arduino Mega Electronics

Electronics Cont. 12 V Battery 60 A Idle power draws 0.25 A Arduino Crane operation draws 3.75 A Arduino + electromagnet + stepper x2 Linear actuators draw 5.25 A Arduino + actuator (one at a time) Arduino shield allows 5 V Arduino to power 12 V motor

AGSE Structure Volume at initial position: 157 ft 3 Lowered height: 42.80 in Raised height: 120.12 in Max width: 50.90 in Max length: 124.80 in Estimated mass: 100.55 lbs

AGSE Verification Results of Testing Securing the payload in the clip Crane can hold the hatch and payload during motion Gears, chains, and belts function properly, do not fall off Rocket can be lifted by linear actuator to correct positon Launch pad does not tip over Igniter smoothly enters motor System can be paused Reliable and repeatable Correctly functioning electronics Estimated AGSE run time: 3 minutes 2.5 minutes for crane, 17 seconds for rail system, 36 seconds for ignitor

Questions?