Fiu NSL CDR PDF

NASA University Student Launch Initiative
2015-2016 Critical Design Report for MAV

FIU PantherWorks Space Team
January 15, 2016
PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Section 1: Summary of CDR Report .................................................................................................................... 14
Team Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Launch Vehicle Summary ................................................................................................................................ 14
AGSE/Payload Summary ................................................................................................................................. 14
Section 2: Changes Made Since PDR Report ....................................................................................................... 15
Vehicle Criteria Changes ................................................................................................................................. 15
AGSE Criteria Changes .................................................................................................................................... 15
Project Plan Changes ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Section 3: Vehicle Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 17
Design and Verification of Launch Vehicle ..................................................................................................... 17
Mission Statement ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Mission Verification .................................................................................................................................... 17
Mission Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................. 18
Full Launch Vehicle Assembly ..................................................................................................................... 48
Workmanship.............................................................................................................................................. 48
Planned Future Work .................................................................................................................................. 50
Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Integrity of Design....................................................................................................................................... 53
Aerodynamic Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 72
Assembly procedures, Interfaces, and integration ................................................................................... 105
Interfaces ...................................................................................................................................................... 106
Launch Load Paths ........................................................................................................................................ 108
Recovery Load Paths ..................................................................................................................................... 108
Motor Mounting and Retention ............................................................................................................... 109
Overall Mass Statement............................................................................................................................ 111
Launch Vehicle Verification ...................................................................................................................... 111
Subscale Flight Results .................................................................................................................................. 115
SUbscale Mission ...................................................................................................................................... 116

Subscale Vehicle Design ............................................................................................................................ 116
Test Site and COnditions ........................................................................................................................... 124
Test Launch Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 124
Test Events ................................................................................................................................................ 125
First Subscale Launch Results ................................................................................................................... 125
Second Subscale Launch ........................................................................................................................... 126
Test results ................................................................................................................................................ 129
Recovery Subsystem ..................................................................................................................................... 129
Parachute Selection Rationale .................................................................................................................. 129
Recovery Flight Path ................................................................................................................................. 130
Recovery System Components ................................................................................................................. 131
Electrical Schematic .................................................................................................................................. 135
SUB-SCALE TESTING .................................................................................................................................. 135
Recovery System Verification ................................................................................................................... 136
Mission Performance Predictions ................................................................................................................. 138
Mission Performance Criteria ................................................................................................................... 138
Simulated Mission Flight Analysis ............................................................................................................. 142
Drag Assessment....................................................................................................................................... 148
Stability Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 148
Launch Concerns and Operation Procedures ............................................................................................... 148
Safety and Environment ............................................................................................................................... 152
Preliminary Checklist ................................................................................................................................ 152
Safety Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 153
Hazard Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 154
Design Failure Modes................................................................................................................................ 160
Evironmental Concerns ............................................................................................................................. 162
Section 4: Payload Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 165
Mission Success Criteria................................................................................................................................ 165
Payload Bay Components ............................................................................................................................. 166
Rack and Pinion Assembly ........................................................................................................................ 167

Payload bay Electronics ............................................................................................................................ 168
Retention Clips and Locking Mechanism .................................................................................................. 170
Payload Assembly Housing ....................................................................................................................... 171
CHANGES SINCE PDR..................................................................................................................................... 172
REASON FOR CHANGES ............................................................................................................................. 172
Section 5: AGSE Criteria .................................................................................................................................... 173
Ground Support Performance Criteria ......................................................................................................... 173
Overall AGSE Sequence of Events ............................................................................................................. 173
Changes since PDR: ................................................................................................................................... 175
Overall Dimensions and Ground Support Operation ................................................................................ 175
FEA Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 178
Joints ......................................................................................................................................................... 180
Movement from resting to the launching position: ................................................................................. 182
Motion and stablitiy analtsis ..................................................................................................................... 185
Locking after movement and insertion of ignition: .................................................................................. 186
Next steps: ................................................................................................................................................ 187
Components list ........................................................................................................................................ 188
Full Ground Support Assembly ..................................................................................................................... 193
Communication of the system: ................................................................................................................. 194
AGSE Wiring Diagram................................................................................................................................ 196
Requirements and Verification ................................................................................................................. 196
Rover Design ................................................................................................................................................. 198
Selected Components ............................................................................................................................... 199
Overall Process.......................................................................................................................................... 208
OpenCV Tracking Code ............................................................................................................................. 208
Changes since PDR ........................................................................................................................................ 210
Section 6: Project Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 211
Budget Plan ................................................................................................................................................... 211
...................................................................................................................................................................... 212
Funding Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 212

Timeline ........................................................................................................................................................ 213
Overall Timeline ........................................................................................................................................ 213
Currrent Detailed Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 214
Educational Engagement .............................................................................................................................. 215
Appendix: COmplete Project Drawings ............................................................................................................ 218
Launch Vehicle Drawings .............................................................................................................................. 218
Parachute ...................................................................................................................................................... 220
AGSE Drawings .............................................................................................................................................. 249
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Launch Vehicle Overview ...................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Overall Ground Support Dimensions .................................................................................................... 14
Table 3: Basic Mission Verification Metrics ........................................................................................................ 17
Table 4: Carbon Fiber Material Properties ......................................................................................................... 26
Table 5: Phenolic Tubing Material Properties..................................................................................................... 26
Table 6: ABS Mechanical Properties ................................................................................................................... 35
Table 7: TeleMega Specifications........................................................................................................................ 38
Table 8: PerfectFlite Specifications ..................................................................................................................... 39
Table 9: Propulsion Component Descriptions .................................................................................................... 42
Table 10: G5000 Specifications ........................................................................................................................... 46
Table 11: Cesaroni L1350 data ............................................................................................................................ 48
Table 12: AirBrake Components and Function ................................................................................................... 55
Table 13: Screw Critical Speed Calculations ....................................................................................................... 58
Table 14: Power Calculations .............................................................................................................................. 59
Table 15: Peak linear velocity ............................................................................................................................. 59
Table 16: Pitch Calculation.................................................................................................................................. 59
Table 17: Torque from inputted force ................................................................................................................ 60
Table 18: Force from inputted torque ................................................................................................................ 60
Table 19: Stepper Motor Specifications.............................................................................................................. 63
Table 20: Baseline launch vehicle CFD drag results. ........................................................................................... 77
Table 21: Drag in Newtons .................................................................................................................................. 78
Table 22: CFD Pressure Data ............................................................................................................................... 79
Table 23: AirBrake Computer Inputs .................................................................................................... 104
Table 24: Launch Vehicle Component Weights ................................................................................................ 111
Table 25: Vehicle Statement of Work Verification ........................................................................................... 114
Table 26: Parachute Selection Chart................................................................................................................. 129
Table 27: Recovery Events and Descriptions .................................................................................................... 131
Table 28: Recovery Verification ........................................................................................................................ 138
Table 29: Mission Success Criteria .................................................................................................................... 141
Table 30: 0 MPH Flight Data ............................................................................................................................. 143
Table 31: 5 MPH flight data .............................................................................................................................. 144
Table 32: 10 MPH flight data ............................................................................................................................ 144
Table 33: 15 MPH Flight data ............................................................................................................................ 145
Table 34: 20 MPH flight data ............................................................................................................................ 146
Table 35: Stability Data ..................................................................................................................................... 148
Table 36: Recovery Preparation........................................................................................................................ 149
Table 37: Motor Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 150
Table 38: Launchpad Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 151

Table 39: Ignitor Installation ............................................................................................................................. 151
Table 40: Post Flight Inspection ........................................................................................................................ 152
Table 41: First Draft, Procedure Checklist ........................................................................................................ 152
Table 42: Risk Assessment Matrix..................................................................................................................... 155
Table 43: Lab/Machine Shop Risk Assessment ................................................................................................. 156
Table 44: AGSE Risk Assessment Matrix ........................................................................................................... 157
Table 45: Stability/ Propulsion Risk Assessment .............................................................................................. 159
Table 46: Launch Day Risk Assessment............................................................................................................. 159
Table 47: Environmental Effects Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ 160
Table 48: Failure Mode Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 162
Table 49: Environmental Concerns with respect to the launch vehicle ........................................................... 164
Table 50: Risk Assessment Matrix..................................................................................................................... 165
Table 51: Payload Bay Components ................................................................................................................. 166
Table 52: Complete Component List ................................................................................................................ 167
Table 53: RF transmitter specifications ............................................................................................................ 169
Table 54: Design Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 172
Table 55: Safety Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 173
Table 56: AGSE Sequence ................................................................................................................................. 174
Table 57: Dimensions ........................................................................................................................................ 176
Table 58: AGSE Components ............................................................................................................................ 193
Table 59: Miscellaneous Components .............................................................................................................. 194
Table 60: AGSE Verification .............................................................................................................................. 198
Table 61: Project Budget................................................................................................................................... 211
Table 62: Travel Budget .................................................................................................................................... 212
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overall Launch Vehicle Assembly ........................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2: Overall Vehicle Configuration .............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3: Rocksim Simulation of Launch Vehicle ................................................................................................ 22
Figure 4: Von Karman nosecone, current model ................................................................................................ 22
Figure 5: Von Krmn nosecone, CAD model ..................................................................................................... 23
Figure 6: Rationale for Von Karman Nosecone ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7: Base Nosecone Dimensions ................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 8: Back View of Nosecone ........................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 9: Launch Vehicle Airframe Assembly...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 10: Test Airframe tube ............................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 11: AirBrake Airframe test ....................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 12: Parachute Bay Airframe ..................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 13: Section View of Parachute Bay .......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 14: PDR Parachute Bay............................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 15: CDR Parachute Bay ............................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 16: Factor of Safety from FEA .................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 17: Deployment Velocity of Launch Vehicle ............................................................................................ 30
Figure 18: Parachute Simulation Set Up ............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 19: Factor of Safety Plot........................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 20: Stress Plot on Bulkhead ..................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 21: Electronics Bay Section Cut ................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 22: Allowable Component Height ............................................................................................................ 34
Figure 23: Wiring Path ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 24: Electronics Bay on Rails ..................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 25: E-bay with Components (note: antenna picture is flexible) .............................................................. 36
Figure 26: Rail Attachment Location................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 27: TeleMega Flight Computer The TeleMega flight computer is a high end recording, dual deploy
altimeter for high power model rocketry with integrated GPS and telemetry link. The features included make
TeleMega the ideal choice for complex projects. In particular, pyrotechnic events are configurable and can be
based on time and various flight events and status, including angle from vertical. The following tables outlines
the specifications of this computer. ................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 28: TeleMega in E-Bay ............................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 29: PerfectFlite Flight Computer .............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 30: BeagleBone computer ....................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 31: BeagleBone in E-bay .......................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 32: Propulsion Bay Assembly Dimensions ............................................................................................... 41
Figure 33: Propulsion Bay ................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 34: Change in Propulsion Bay .................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 35: Cesaroni Pro 75 casing ....................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 36: Cesaroni Pro 75 casing dimensions.................................................................................................... 44
Figure 37: Cesaroni Pro 75 .................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 38: FinSim Simulation .............................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 39: Fin mounting location ........................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 40: Fin comparison................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 41: FinSim Comparison (left: PDR; right: CDR)......................................................................................... 47
Figure 42: Overall Launch Vehicle Dimensions ................................................................................................... 48
Figure 43: Varying angle will be tested ............................................................................................................... 50
Figure 44: Example of 1 to 1 scale drawing ........................................................................................................ 51
Figure 45: Example of a nosecone being worked on a lathe .............................................................................. 52
Figure 46: AirBrake Side-view ............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 47: Full AirBrake Bay Assembly ................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 48: AirBrake System Operational Diagram .............................................................................................. 54
Figure 49: System Components .......................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 50: AirBrake Closed .................................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 51: AirBrake Open .................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 52: Lead Screw with Nut .......................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 53: End Fixity Factor................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 54: FEA of basic steal lead screw ............................................................................................................. 61
Figure 55: FEA of aluminum screw ..................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 56: Selected Stepper Motor ..................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 57: Stepper Motor Dimensions ................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 58: Torque vs. RPM .................................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 59: Left - SBACB606DD-20 1/4 I.D bearing housing. Right - 6383K214 1/4 I.D bearing .......................... 65
60: Left - SBACB606DD-20 1/4 I.D bearing housing. Right - 6383K214 1/4 I.D bearing ..................................... 65
Figure 61: AirBrake Flap Linkages ....................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 62: Link FEA .............................................................................................................................................. 67
Figure 63: Flap Link FEA ...................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 64: Factor of Safety plot........................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 65: Flap Hinge Mounting.......................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 66: AirBrake Hinges.................................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 67: AirBrake System Flaps ........................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 68: AirBrake Flap section cut ................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 69: Flap Mass Properties.......................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 70: Stepper motor with built-in lead screw ............................................................................................. 71
Figure 71: Flap to link and hinge mounts............................................................................................................ 72
Figure 72: Round backside of flap mounts ......................................................................................................... 72
Figure 73: Proposed First Iteration Drag Force Calculation ................................................................................ 73

Figure 74: Flap Dimensions ................................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 75: Launch vehicle in solver. .................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 76: Launch vehicle mesh refinement. ...................................................................................................... 76
Figure 77: Baseline CFD test. .............................................................................................................................. 77
Figure 78: Velocity Magnitude for non-modified vehicle. .................................................................................. 78
Figure 79: Airbrake with rounded corners. ......................................................................................................... 79
Figure 80: Velocity magnitude with rounded flaps............................................................................................. 79
Figure 81: non-modified flap (left) rounded flap (right). .................................................................................... 80
Figure 82: Contours of static pressure. ............................................................................................................... 80
Figure 83: non-modified flap (top) rounded flap (bottom). ............................................................................... 81
Figure 84: Flaps with 0.25in holes. ..................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 85: Magnitude Velocity Airbrake Angle: 30 Deg rounded corners with .25in holes. .............................. 82
Figure 86: Figure 95: Magnitude Velocity Airbrake Angle: 30 Deg rounded corners with .25in holes............... 83
Figure 87: Velocity Vectors colored by velocity Magnitude (m/s)...................................................................... 83
Figure 88: No holes velocity magnitude vector plot. .......................................................................................... 84
Figure 89: Static Pressure (Pascal) ...................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 90: Pathlines Colored by Magnitude (m/s) .............................................................................................. 85
Figure 91: No holes rounded (top) 0.25in holes bottom. ................................................................................... 85
Figure 92: No holes and just rounded (top) 0.25 holes (bottom) ....................................................................... 86
Figure 93: 0.25 holes flap (top) no holes (bottom) ............................................................................................. 87
Figure 94: 0.5in holes with rounded corners. ..................................................................................................... 88
Figure 95. 3rd flap iteration. ............................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 96: No holes average center of pressure. ................................................................................................ 89
Figure 97: 0.50 holes average center of pressure............................................................................................... 89
Figure 98: Contours of velocity magnitude......................................................................................................... 90
Figure 99: Contours of velocity magnitude Top (.50 holes) Bottom (0.25 holes)............................................... 90
Figure 100: 0.25in holes (top) 0.25in holes bottom. .......................................................................................... 91
Figure 101: 0.25in holes (top) 0.25in holes bottom zoomed in.......................................................................... 92
Figure 102: Comparison of turbulent intensity................................................................................................... 93
Figure 103: Comparison of velocity vectors. ...................................................................................................... 94
Figure 104: Airflow straight line path. ................................................................................................................ 95
Figure 105: Airflow pathlines .............................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 106: Vortex forming ................................................................................................................................. 97
Figure 107: Airbrake Flap rev-2........................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 108: Airbrake with 0.50in holes on flaps. ................................................................................................ 98
Figure 109: Nosecone Interface ........................................................................................................................ 106
Figure 110: Parachute Bay to AirBrake Bay Interface ....................................................................................... 107
Figure 111: AirBrake Bay to Propulsion Bay Interface ...................................................................................... 107
Figure 112: Thrust load path in airbrake. ......................................................................................................... 108

Figure 113: Recovery load paths....................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 114: Motor placement in bay ................................................................................................................ 109
Figure 115: Motor retention. ............................................................................................................................ 110
Figure 116: Subscale, first launch ..................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 117: Subscale Launch Vehicle ................................................................................................................ 116
Figure 118: Subscale Ogive Nosecone .............................................................................................................. 117
Figure 119: Parachute Bay Highlighted ............................................................................................................. 117
Figure 120: Recovery System ............................................................................................................................ 118
Figure 121: Eye Bolt .......................................................................................................................................... 118
Figure 122: Subscale AirBrake .......................................................................................................................... 118
Figure 123: Subscale AirBrake, missing flap covering ....................................................................................... 119
Figure 124: CAD of AirBrake ............................................................................................................................. 120
Figure 125: Subscale AirBrake Drawing ............................................................................................................ 121
Figure 126: Subscale Propulsion ....................................................................................................................... 122
Figure 127: 3D Printed Thrust Plate .................................................................................................................. 122
Figure 128: StratoLoggerCF............................................................................................................................... 123
Figure 129: Subscale Launch Site ...................................................................................................................... 124
Figure 130: Remains of first subscale launch.................................................................................................... 126
Figure 131: First Subscale Test.......................................................................................................................... 127
Figure 132: Second Subscale Test ..................................................................................................................... 127
Figure 133: First subscale test........................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 134: Second subscale test ...................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 135: Iris Ultra 120'' Parachute ............................................................................................................... 130
Figure 136: Black Powder Location ................................................................................................................... 130
Figure 137: Recovery Sequence ........................................................................................................................ 131
Figure 138: Steal eyebolt with bulkhead .......................................................................................................... 132
Figure 139: Eyebolt data sheet ......................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 140: Archetype Rocketry Cable Cutter .................................................................................................. 133
Figure 141: Suggested Manufacturer Configuration ........................................................................................ 133
Figure 142: Redundant Cable Cutters ............................................................................................................... 134
Figure 143: Recovery System Electrical Schematic ........................................................................................... 135
Figure 144: 0 mph flight profile simulation ...................................................................................................... 142
Figure 145: 5 MPH wind flight profile ............................................................................................................... 143
Figure 146: 10 MPH Flight profile simulation ................................................................................................... 144
Figure 147: 15 MPH flight profile ...................................................................................................................... 145
Figure 148: 20 MPH Flight profile ..................................................................................................................... 146
Figure 149: Actual Simulated Motor Thrust Curve ........................................................................................... 147
Figure 150: Manufacturer Provided Motor Thrust Curve ................................................................................. 147
Figure 151: Rocksim Simulation ........................................................................................................................ 148

Figure 152: Rack and Pinion Assembly ............................................................................................................. 167
Figure 153: HS-645MG Servo Characteristics ................................................................................................... 168
Figure 154: Microcontroller Information .......................................................................................................... 169
Figure 155: RF Transmitter ............................................................................................................................... 169
Figure 156: Payload Retention Clips ................................................................................................................. 170
Figure 157: Latch System .................................................................................................................................. 170
Figure 158: Payload Assembly Housing Isometric Views .................................................................................. 171
Figure 159: Payload Assembly Housing with components loaded ................................................................... 171
Figure 160: Launch Rail Assembly in Launch Position ...................................................................................... 174
Figure 161: AGSE assembly at an intermediate state during the erection of the rocket ................................. 175
Figure 162: The framework base body ............................................................................................................. 177
Figure 163: Rover Ramp.................................................................................................................................... 177
Figure 164: Main Supporting Beam Load.......................................................................................................... 179
Figure 165: Buckling Simulation of a Supporting Beam .................................................................................... 180
Figure 166: Ground Support Connecting Joints ................................................................................................ 181
Figure 167: Articulated Joint ............................................................................................................................. 182
Figure 168: Demonstration of the calculations that were used to develop the equation above. ................... 183
Figure 169: Final Launch Rail configuration ...................................................................................................... 184
Figure 170: Launch configuration. .................................................................................................................... 184
Figure 171: Motion Close-up ............................................................................................................................ 185
Figure 172: Rail Angular Velocity ...................................................................................................................... 186
Figure 173: Ignitor Insertion System ................................................................................................................. 187
Figure 174: PA-04 Linear Actuator .................................................................................................................... 188
Figure 175: PA-04 Linear Actuator (Dimensions in Inches) .............................................................................. 189
Figure 176: 12V DC Speed vs Load .................................................................................................................... 190
Figure 177: 12V DC Current vs Load ................................................................................................................. 191
Figure 178: Ground Support Top View ............................................................................................................. 191
Figure 179: Ground Support Side View............................................................................................................. 192
Figure 180: Misumi piping cross-section drawing ............................................................................................ 192
Figure 181: Full AGSE assembly ........................................................................................................................ 193
Figure 182: System communication. ................................................................................................................ 194
Figure 183: Ground Support Wiring Diagram ................................................................................................... 196
Figure 184: Curiosity Jr. Rover .......................................................................................................................... 198
Figure 185: RaspberryPi computer ................................................................................................................... 199
Figure 186: Diagram of Raspberry Pi. ............................................................................................................... 200
Figure 187: Standard Webcam ......................................................................................................................... 200
Figure 188: Left rover tread. ............................................................................................................................. 201
Figure 189: Drawing of tread assembly. ........................................................................................................... 201
Figure 190: Curiosity Jr arm. ............................................................................................................................. 202

Figure 191: Rover arm claw. ............................................................................................................................. 203
Figure 192: Robot arm pick up length. ............................................................................................................. 203
Figure 193: Arm base motion. .......................................................................................................................... 204
Figure 194: Rover arm drawing. ....................................................................................................................... 205
Figure 195: Base with tracks ............................................................................................................................. 205
Figure 196: Base................................................................................................................................................ 206
Figure 197: RF transmitters .............................................................................................................................. 206
Figure 198: Continuous Servo ........................................................................................................................... 207
Figure 199: Standard Servo............................................................................................................................... 208
Figure 200: PantherWorks Outreach Event ...................................................................................................... 216
Figure 201: Water Bottle Rocket Activity ......................................................................................................... 217
SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF CDR REPORT

Team Summary
University Name:
Team Name:
Mailing Address:
Florida International University

PantherWorks Space
Florida International University
College of Engineering and Computing
10555 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33174
Launch Vehicle Name: Ad Astra
Mentor Name: Joseph Coverston
Certification: Level 2 Tripoli Rocketry Association
Contact Information: jcove001@fiu.edu | 407-754-6572
Launch Vehicle Summary

The following table outlines a basic overview of this years competition launch vehicle. The launch
vehicle preliminary design followed has focused on minimizing manufacturing complexity, while keeping
structural integrity and stability in flight.
Overall Length (in.)
Diameter (in.)
102.07
6.17
Mass (lbs.)
24.6
Motor Choice
Cesaroni 4263L1350 P
Recovery System
Signal Main Deployment
Table 1: Launch Vehicle Overview
AGSE/Payload Summary
Dimension
Length
Width
Height
Weight
At resting position
108.00
68.81
31.86
At launch position
108.00
68.81
104.46
120 lbs
Table 2: Overall Ground Support Dimensions
The table above outlines a summary of the basic dimensions of the updated ground support
assembly. The autonomous rover body will be 3D printed, and controlled by a RaspberryPi computer. Its
motion will be controlled by servos. The entire AGSE design focuses on functionality and innovation on
autonomous that could be used on Mars.
SECTION 2: CHANGES MADE SINCE PDR REPORT

Vehicle Criteria Changes
The competition launch vehicle has met with a number of changes intended to optimize the design
since the initial proposal stage. The following list summarized the changes encountered since the preliminary
design report:
The payload bay has been moved into the nosecone of the vehicle.
The parachute bay was shortened in response to the above change.
AirBrake flaps have been configured with holes.
AirBrake stepper motor has been decided upon.
AirBrake interfaces and linkages have been developed.
Fin semi-span increase by one inch.
Motor casing changed from a six grain to a four grain case.

The payload bay was moved to the nosecone of the vehicle for various reasons. One of these reasons
is in order to raise the center of gravity to provide more stability compensating for the AirBrake system. The
parachute bay was subsequently shortened to account for the moving of the payload bay, which used to be
located adjacent to it.
The AirBrake design has been developed. The flaps have been refitted with holes in order to
eliminate the extra turbulence cause by flow simulation at the flaps edges. An appropriate stepper motor has
also been decided upon to meet the needs of the subsystem. In addition, the linkage interfaces between the
links and the flaps, and the links and the nut have been designed more fully.
The fins have been enlarged in order to increase the stability of the launch vehicle as the AirBrake
deploys, and the overall size of the propulsion bay has been shortened in order to save on overall launch
vehicle height.
AGSE Criteria Changes

The overall AGSE has gone through minor design changes and improvements since the preliminary
design report. These are outlined below:
The method for inserting the ignitor into the motor has been changed from a telescoping antenna to
a linear actuated system.
Ramp location has been changed to accommodate payload bay location change
Payload retrieving rover has been fully designed.
Interfacing between the rover, ground support, and payload bay have been further detailed.
The design for inserting the ignitor into the motor has been changed in order to avoid any potential
scratching of the grain in the motor with the telescoping antenna.
The ramp for the rover now accommodates the new location of the payload bay, and the rover body
has been fully designed in CAD. In addition, further detailing has been done in the interfacing between all the
different AGSE components.
Project Plan Changes

No significant changes have been made to the project plan.
SECTION 3: VEHICLE CRITERIA

Design and Verification of Launch Vehicle
MISSION STATEMENT
The FIU PantherWorks Space team will design and build an Autonomous Ground Support Equipment (AGSE)
capable of performing on pad operations to prepare a high powered rocket for launch. The rocket will be
designed to be capable of reaching an altitude no greater than 5,280 feet above ground level. In addition, the
AGSE will recover a payload located outside the launch vehicles mold line and insert it into the delegated
payload compartment.
MISSION VERIFICATION
Requirement
FIU ASME will design and build a
launch vehicle in a timely
manner consistent with
guidelines specified by NASA
Student Launch officials.
Reasoning
FIU ASME wishes to comply with
all competition requirements
and does not want to be
penalized or disqualified from
the competition.
FIU ASME will follow and comply

with all NAR rules when
conducting any testing and
launch procedures.
FIU ASME wishes to protect the

safety of its members as well as
the public present at testing and
launch events.
FIU ASME will conduct a

subscale flight test of the launch
vehicle prior to the full-scale
flight test and prior to CDR.
FIU ASME wishes to verify that

design choices for the vehicle are
valid by testing them on a
subscale rocket before
entrusting them to the full-scale
rocket. The subscale flight test
also serves to satisfy a
competition requirement.
In addition to verifying design
choices, the full-scale launch will
serve to satisfy NASA Student
Launch competition
requirements.
FIU ASME will complete a fullscale test flight of the vehicle

prior to FRR in order to validate
vehicle design by ensuring all
parts function as designed and
ensure that the vehicle can
remain launch-ready for at least
one hour.
Verification
FIU ASME will develop and
maintain a schedule for the
design, construction, and testing
of the launch vehicle such that all
requirements are met by
specified NASA Student Launch
deadlines.
FIU ASMEs Safety Officer will
ensure that all of its team
members are educated in safety
practices and will enforce safety
in all aspects of construction,
design, testing, and launch of the
vehicle.
FIU PantherWorks Space has
conducted a subscale test flight.
Ensuring the launch vehicle is
stable during flight.
FIU ASME will contact several

local rocketry groups to ensure
that different options are
available for the location and
time of test launches.
Table 3: Basic Mission Verification Metrics
MISSION SUCCESS CRITERIA

The vehicles mission will be considered to be a success if the following criteria are met:
1) The vehicles apogee does not exceed 5600 ft. above ground level.
2) AirBrake successfully guilds rocket to 5280 ft.
3) The main parachute is deployed at 800 ft.
4) The vehicles descent is controlled and does not result in damage to itself, property, or people.
5) No safety violations occur.
Overview
Figure 1: Overall Launch Vehicle Assembly
The PantherWorks Space team is focusing on overall efficiency and reusability of the launch vehicle
by employing a modular design. The launch vehicle designed this year features revamped versions of certain
systems; these revisions were done by using prior experiences as guides to improve upon the quality and
precision of the of all components and assemblies present in launch vehicle. The modular design allows for
extremely fixable launch vehicle capable of meeting multiple mission requirements.
Figure 2: Overall Vehicle Configuration
Figure 3 shows the basic layout of all sub sections of the launch vehicle: nosecone bay/payload bay,
main recovery bay, electronics bay, air braking bay, and propulsion bay. The launch vehicle is designed to
be made of Kraft Phenolic wrapped in carbon fiber and will feature an air braking system to insure target
altitude is never surpassed.
Applicable Formulas
In order to accurately ascertain the stability and success of the rocket, three important values must
be calculated: peak altitude, center of gravity, and center of pressure. The peak altitude is found through a
specific sequence of equations. The average mass is first calculated using:
In this equation, is the rocket mass, is the motor mass, and is the propellant mass. The
aerodynamic drag coefficient (kg/m) is further computed by:
In the equation above, is the air density (1.22 kg/m3), D is the drag coefficient, and is the rocket
cross-sectional area (m2). Equations 1 and 2 are used to calculate the burnout velocity coefficient (m/s) using,
Here, is the motor thrust, and is the gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2). Equations 1, 2, and 3 are
then used to compute the burnout velocity decay coefficient (1/s) with the following formula:
Then, equations 3 and 4 are used to calculate the burnout velocity (m/s) as follows:
Where t is motor burnout time (s). The altitude at burnout can then be calculated by:
With the burnout altitude having been calculated, the coasting distance can be found by first
beginning with the value of the coasting mass which is calculated as follows:
The average mass in equations 3 and 4 is replaced with the coasting mass. This replacement results
in equations 8 and 9 for the coasting velocity coefficient and coasting velocity decay coefficient, respectively:
Equations 8 and 9 are subsequently used to calculate the coasting velocity (m/s) using:
Furthermore, the coasting distance can then be computed as follows:
From the coasting distance calculation, the peak altitude can be found as follows:
The center of gravity location is calculated using:
Where W is the total weight, d is the distance between the denoted rocket section center of gravity (nose,
rocket, body, engine, and fins, respectively) and the aft end. Moreover, the center of pressure measured
from the nose tip can be found using this equation:
In this equation, the (CN) N is the nose cone center of pressure coefficient, and the N is computed by
this formula:
Where N is the nose cone length. The (CN) F in equation 14 is the fin center of pressure coefficient calculated
using the following equation:
The variables in this equation are defined as follows, R is the radius of the body at the aft end, S is the
fin semi span, N is the number of fins, Lf is the length of the fin mid chord line, CR is the fin root chord
length, and T is the fin tip chord length. The final variable in equation 14, f, is calculated using;
Where B is the distance from the nose tip to the fin root chord leading edge and XR is the distance between
the fin root leading edge and the fin tip leading edge measured parallel to body. Equations 14 through 17 are
also known as the Barrowman Equations (The Theoretical Prediction of the Center of Pressure, 1966).
Stability and Construction

The launch vehicle airframe will be constructed primarily of Kraft Phenolic wrapped in carbon fiber,
and the internal structure will be constructed out of fiberglass, plywood, ABS plastic, and aluminum. The
vehicle is designed to house a cache capsule payload within its airframe. To ensure an efficient design, the
launch vehicle has been designed to use as much internal space as reasonably possible within each module.
Figure 3: Rocksim Simulation of Launch Vehicle
The vehicle is designed such that the payload bay will be located in the nosecone. This allows one of
the heavier systems in the vehicle to sit high up in the rocket, thus raising the center of gravity and increasing
stability. This also allow a normally unused part of the launch vehicle to be used. The figure above also shows
the location of electronic bay, right below the recovery bay compartment. The AirBrake system is housed
below the electronics bay, followed by the propulsion bay.
Nosecone Design
The design of this years launch vehicle utilizes a Von Krmn nosecone.
Figure 4: Von Karman nosecone, current model
The following equations were used to create the shape of the Von Krmn nosecone in a 3D
computer aided design modeling software to insure accurate simulation results.
(18)
(19)
The variables in the previous two equations are defined as

follows:
C = 0 for Von Krmn
L = Length
R = Radius of base for nose cone
x = Distance from tip of nose cone
Figure 5: Von Krmn nosecone, CAD model
Selection Rationale
The Von Krmn was the initial first choice for our teams design, due to its optimal performance at
subsonic and transonic speeds. Unlike other nosecone shapes, the Von Krmn nosecone is mathematically
derived for the purpose of minimizing drag. The following equations were used to create the shape of the
Von Krmn nosecone in a 3D computer aided design modeling software to insure accurate simulation
results. The geometry can then be exported to a CNC lathe; allowing the nosecone to be manufactured with
ease. Fiberglass was chosen as the nosecone material because of its lightweight characteristics and strong
material properties. Our nosecone will also feature an aluminum tip. This aluminum tip can withstand the
heat due to the stagnation temperature of the launch vehicle traveling around 770 ft/s.
Figure 6: Rationale for Von Karman Nosecone
Figure 7: Base Nosecone Dimensions
Characteristics
Figure 8: Back View of Nosecone
The back of the nosecone is enclosed with fiberglass in order to ensure that the ejection events push
the parachute out of the upper airframe tube, allowing the main parachute to open.
Airframe
Figure 9: Launch Vehicle Airframe Assembly
Selection Rationale
By using commercially available phenolic tubing, the ease of being able to use pre made bulkheads
and coupler sections can be taken advantage of, simplifying the manufacturing process. The carbon fiber
overlay is used to increase the rigidity and load bearing capacity of the airframe. The outer layer of carbon
fiber provides the airframe with excellent axial material properties. Overlaying the phenolic with a carbon
fiber layer the otherwise somewhat brittle phenolic. Pure carbon fiber airframe were considered, but the
increased cost of both couplers and the airframe causes it to be quickly eliminated from our design selection.
Characteristics
Having the team manufacture the carbon fiber wrapped phenolic airframe sections in house enables
allows for a saving in cost and the ability to quality check each airframe as it is being manufactured. This
provides us with an inexpensive way to manufacture carbon fiber reinforced airframe sections. Replacement
couplers, centering rings and bulkheads are all readily available for commercial purchase. Furthermore,
carbon fiber wrapped phenolic is strong and resistant to hard landings. The following two tables outline
material properties for both carbon fiber and phenolic tubing.
Table 4: Carbon Fiber Material Properties
Table 5: Phenolic Tubing Material Properties
Airframe Testing
Figure 10: Test Airframe tube
A simple FEA analysis of the airbrake phenolic airframe segment was conducted. Shown in figure 12 is a 23in
section of the airbrake with the motor rated thrust as the force. This segment shown is before sections are
removed for flaps. The airframe was put in compression and at factor of 15 was achieved.
Figure 11: AirBrake Airframe test
Same FEA was run again with motor thrust rating as load and a factor of safety of 2.8 was achieved. This is
expected as we are removing supporting material for the section. This airframe will be reinforced by
wrapping the airframe in carbon fiber and the airbrake lead screw.
Parachute Bay
Figure 12: Parachute Bay Airframe
The parachute bay and the payload bay will be both be housed in a single phenolic airframe tubing.
This was done to insure space was used efficiently, making this the longest bay of our launch vehicle. These
two systems will be placed in one full length, 36.27 section of phenolic tubing. A bulkhead will separate the
parachute bay from the e-bay bay and that same bulkhead will be that attachment point for an eyebolt to
secure the parachute to the launch vehicle. Finite element analysis (FEA) simulations has been conducted on
the bulkhead and airframe structure. Parachute ejection test have been completed to insure components can
handle a black powder charge to be used for parachute ejection. The following two images show the overall
dimensions of this section.
Figure 13: Section View of Parachute Bay
Changes since PDR

The overall length of the parachute bay has decreased in size from 48 inches to 36.27 inches. This comes
from moving the payload bay to the nosecone from where it was for PDR. This allows the parachute bay, and
the overall length of the launch vehicle, to decrease in size. The comparison of the two iterations can be seen
in the images below.
Figure 14: PDR Parachute Bay
Figure 15: CDR Parachute Bay
Parachute Bay Testing
Figure 16: Factor of Safety from FEA
Simulations were ran on the parachute bay to insure the airframe can handle all stresses caused by
deployment of the main parachute. All simulations where conducted at a worst case scenario of the main
parachute deploying with a drogue failure. This corresponds to a deployment at 450 ft/s. This velocity was
obtain from a Rocksim plot of velocity versus time.
Figure 17: Deployment Velocity of Launch Vehicle
Simulations were conducted on the parachute airframe and bulkhead. The airframe was tested just as
phenolic tubing due to the challenge of simulating carbon fiber. The bulkhead material is G10 fiberglass.
Figure 18: Parachute Simulation Set Up
Figure 19: Factor of Safety Plot
Figure 20 shows factor of safety plot on the assembly. The minimum factor of safety was 14, well above the
require factor of safety. This demonstrates that our parachute bay can meet system functions requirements
of withstanding the loads during main parachute deployment.
Figure 20: Stress Plot on Bulkhead
Figure 21 shows the von Mises stress plot on the parachute bulkhead. Since G10 fiberglass was chosen as the
material, all stresses are well within the range of the material. After simulation were run on the parachute
bulkhead, results showed a safely designed parachute bay.
Electronics Bay
The electronics bay will house the two flight computers and the AirBrake computer, in addition to
the batteries needed to power the three computers and the AirBrake stepper motor.
Figure 21: Electronics Bay Section Cut
The flight computers will be mounted on one of the 3 surfaces of the triangle seen in Figure 17
below. This triangle design allows 45.3 square inches of area on each surface for mounting components with
a clearance of 1.80 inches, as seen in Figure 18. The electronics bay will also house at least three 9 volt
batteries, one for each flight computer and a larger LiPo battery for the stepper motor.
Figure 22: Allowable Component Height
Wires will be organized thorough the center of the triangle, seen in Figure 19. This allows for a main
wiring harness which connects all the flight computers and the stepper motor, and clears the wiring harness
from any tangling obstacles.
Figure 23: Wiring Path
The electronics bay is going to be 3D printed in ABS plastic. This allows us to design mounting
locations for all three computers into the design to be 3D printed also well as mounting points for batteries,
saving the extra time and weight that would be needed if mounting would need to be design. Also this allows
all objects to be secured well no allowing moving during launch or landing. In addition, no wiring holes will
have to be drilled.
Table 6: ABS Mechanical Properties
ABS plastic has excellent material properties and can handle heat and impact better than other 3D
printed plastics. Also because it been used commercially in 3D printers it is inexpensive.
Figure 24: Electronics Bay on Rails
Shown below in figure 26 is the electronics bay with the three flight computers and batteries. There is space
left over for wiring and for the stepper motor battery. Components will be arrayed so that the center of mass
is has high and as center as possible.
Figure 25: E-bay with Components (note: antenna picture is flexible)
The electronics bay is designed to be on metal rails for easy access to any flight components. If repairs
are needed, launch vehicle can be taken apart at the AirBrake section and electronics bay pulled out to be
worked on. The rails also act as reinforcement for the airframe and will be mounted, on one end, to the
bulkhead between AirBrake and electronics bay compartments.
Figure 26: Rail Attachment Location
Selection Rationale
The function of the electronics bay is to safely house flight electronics used to record flight data
during launch and landing, as well as perform ejection events and AirBrake control at specified altitudes. Due
to the need for redundancy, it will need to house two flight computers and a GPS unit along with the required
power for each.
In addition to strength requirements, the electronics bay must be easily accessible and removable for
electronics maintenance and charge reloading. The triangle design allows this as the electronics are mounted
on the surface. Once the electronics bay is pulled out the electronics can be worked on without removing
them from the bay, allowing for simple repairs. Also having the wiring routed through the center it allows
better organization of the wires, and easy replacement of any components.
Electronics
Figure 27: TeleMega Flight Computer The TeleMega flight computer is a high end recording, dual
deploy altimeter for high power model rocketry with integrated GPS and telemetry link. The features
included make TeleMega the ideal choice for complex projects. In particular, pyrotechnic events are
configurable and can be based on time and various flight events and status, including angle from vertical. The
following tables outlines the specifications of this computer.
Figure 28: TeleMega in E-Bay
Telemega Key Features:

Recording altimeter for high power model rocketry
Supports dual deployment and 4 additional pyro events.
Pyro events are configurable and can be based on time and various flight events and status, including
angle from vertical (for safety in staging and air start flights).
70cm ham-band transceiver for telemetry downlink
Barometric pressure sensor good to 100k feet MSL
1-axis 105-g accelerometer for motor characterization
3-axis 16-g accelerometer for gyro calibration
3-axis 2000 deg/sec gyros
3-axis magnetic sensor
On-board, integrated GPS receiver
On-board non-volatile memory for flight data storage
USB for power, configuration, and data recovery
Integrated support for LiPo rechargeable batteries
User choice of pyro battery configuration, can use primary LiPo or any customer-chosen separate pyro
battery up to 12 volts nominal.
3.25 x 1.25 x 0.625 inch board designed to fit inside 38mm airframe coupler tube
Weight: 25g (0.88oz)
Table 7: TeleMega Specifications
Figure 29: PerfectFlite Flight Computer
The StratoLoggerCF collects flight data (altitude, temperature, and battery voltage) at a rate of 20
samples per second throughout the flight and stores them for later download to a power removed. The
following table outlines the specifications of this flight computer.
StratoLoggerCF Key Features
Works to 100,000 feet MSL, audibly reports peak altitude and maximum velocity after flight.
Stores 16 flights of 18 minutes each (altitude, temp-erature, and battery voltage at 20 samples per
second) for download to a computer with the optional DT4U USB interface. Hi-speed sampling and
storage of battery voltage serves as a useful aid in diagnosing intermittent problems with your battery,
switch, and wiring. All data are preserved with power off.
Deploys drogue and main chutes with audible ematch continuity check.
Outputs capable of 5A current for 1 full second to allow use with nearly any ematch or ematch
substitute. Reverse polarity protection prevents spontaneous firing if battery is connected backwards.
Main chute deployment altitude is adjustable from 100 feet to 9,999 feet in 1 foot increments. 9 presets
allow for quick change in the field.
No Mach delay necessary for Mach+ flights: Automatic Mach Lock assures proper operation with any
flight.
Brownout protection will tolerate 2 second power loss in flight no need for multiple batteries.
Precision sensor & 24 bit ADC yield superb 0.1% accuracy.
Built-in voltmeter reports battery voltage on power up no more guessing about battery condition.
Post flight locator siren aids in locating your rocket.
Confusion-free individual terminal blocks unreliable multiple wires per terminal are not necessary.
Dedicated switch terminal block eliminates the need for splicing switch into battery wire.
Highly resistant to false trigger from wind gusts; tested in 100+ MPH winds!
Selectable apogee delay for dual altimeter setups prevents overpressure from simultaneous charge
firing.
Low power design runs for weeks on a standard 9V alkaline battery. Post-flight locator siren will run for
months, giving you multiple second chances to find a lost rocket.
Telemetry output for real-time data in flight with your RF link.
Rugged SMD construction, stringent QC testing, and internal self-diagnostics assure uncompromising
reliability.
Wide operating temperature range of -40F to +185F.
Measures just 2.0"L x 0.84"W x 0.5"H, fits 24mm tube, weighs just 0.38 oz.
Table 8: PerfectFlite Specifications
Figure 30: BeagleBone computer
Figure 31: BeagleBone in E-bay
The BeagleBone is credit card sized Linux with plenty of processing power for real-time analysis
provided by an AM335x 720MHz ARM processor. The BeagleBone can be complimented with cape plug in
boards to augment functionality.
This will be the dedicated computer for the AirBrake stepper motor. It will perform all flight
calculations need to deploy the AirBrake system. The BeagleBone will receive flight data from the flight
computer for its altitude projection calculations. Then send a single to the stepper motor for to open or close
the airbrake depending on the angle and drag.
All electronics and computers will be tested before being installed on launch vehicle and before each test
launch. This insures the electronics can support the system functional requirements.
Propulsion Bay
Figure 32: Propulsion Bay Assembly Dimensions
Figure 33: Propulsion Bay
Component
1 Engine Casing
2 Coupler Tube
3 Bulkhead
4 G10 Fins
Description
6 grain aluminum engine casing
12 in. coupler
Provides engine and fin support
Provides stability
Table 9: Propulsion Component Descriptions
The propulsion bay will serve two specific purposes: as the connection point for the fins and the
motor and motor case housing. Our propulsion bay is design to be modular and easily interchangeable with a
larger or smaller propulsion bay as is needed.
Selection Rationale
The lower airframe consists of the lower body tube, the motor mount and the fins. This portion of
the rocket will be exposed to the largest forces of any rocket section. As a result an emphasis must be placed
on obtaining the sturdiest design possible.
The rationale of making the propulsion bay interchangeable from the launch vehicle allows the
ability to fulfill multiple mission profiles. Interchanging a larger engine allows us to achieve a higher altitude.
Sub-scale tests demonstrate the propulsion bay can met system level functional requirements. Full scale
testing will further reinforce this.
Characteristics
The engine casing will be flush against the airframe coupler to optimize space, as can be seen in Figure 26.
Three trapezoidal G10 fiberglass fins will be attached to the propulsion bay and will be both surface mounted
and center ring mounted. The engine casing will be held in place by centering rings.
Changes from PDR
Figure 34: Change in Propulsion Bay
Between preliminary and critical design, the propulsion bay has been shortened by 10.675 inches.
This was done to fit a smaller engine casing from Cesaroni. The engine casing was shortened from a six grain
to four grain solid rocket motor. Since our design is modular, the six grain propulsion is still an option, and
would allow our launch vehicle to ascend to higher altitudes. The carbon fiber reinforcement also has been
shortened to match the propulsion bay.
Engine Casing
Figure 35: Cesaroni Pro 75 casing
Figure 36: Cesaroni Pro 75 casing dimensions
Cesaroni Pro 75 rocket motor hardware is CNC machined from 6061 T6 aluminum alloy and
anodized for corrosion protection. Five components make up a complete Pro75 motor hardware set: the
motor casing, the forward closure, the nozzle holder (rear closure), and the one threaded retaining rings for
each end of the case. An accessory wrench is available which make fitting and removing the retaining rings
simple.
The PantherWorks Space team has much experience in using Cesaroni motors. Sub-scale tests and
demonstrated that this propulsion system can meet all our system requirements for the launch vehicle.
Figure 37: Cesaroni Pro 75
Changes since PDR

The casing is shorten by 10.67 inches. This is due from a change of a six grain to a four grain solid motor. This
change allowed the center of pressure to move lower on the launch vehicle. This allows the launch vehicle to
be more stable especially during the airbrake deployment.
As stated above, the 6 grain option can still be used. This option will allow the launch vehicle more powerful
engine options.
Fins
Three trapezoidal G10 fiberglass fins will attach near the end of the propulsion bay to provide
stability to the launch vehicle. Trapezoidal G10 fiberglass fins where selected based on past years
experience. Also there shape was selected on previous team experience. They are simple and cost effective
to manufacture. A thickness of a quarter inch was selected for the thickness due to fin divergence and flutter
calculations. FinSim was used to test the fin design, as can be seen in the following image.
Figure 38: FinSim Simulation
Fin flutter can rip our propulsion bay apart. With a G10 fin thickness of a quarter inch, the flutter
speed is 2815.51.ft/s. Our maximum velocity is approximately 700 ft/s, well under the simulated flutter speed
of the fins being used.
Figure 39: Fin mounting location
The fins will have a root cord length of 12 inches, a tip cord of 3 inches, a semi- span of 9 inches, and
a front sweep of 3 inches. Fins will be surface mounted and mounted on the engine centering rings, as can be
seen in Figure 31 above. Fin will be mounted using G5000 high strength epoxy or an equivalent epoxy. The
epoxy will be placed as filets on the surface and on the sides of the centering rings. The specifications of this
epoxy can be found in the table below.
Specific gravity, Resin
Specific gravity, Hardener
Specific gravity mixed
Tensile strength
Compression strength
Elongation at break %
1.52
1.48
1.5
7,600 psi
14,800 psi
6.3%
Table 10: G5000 Specifications
Changes since PDR

The semi-span of the fins was increased from the previous report. The fin semi span was 8 inches, which
has since been changed to a semi span of 9 inches.
Figure 40: Fin comparison
This increase in semi-span translates to a static stability margin increase of .22. This increase in semi-span
came from concerns for the center of pressure moving closer to the center of gravity during operation of the
airbrakes.
Figure 41: FinSim Comparison (left: PDR; right: CDR)
Motor Selection
The final motor selected for the full scale version of this launch vehicle is the Cesaroni three grain L class
motor, 4263L1350-P. Cesaroni has been a primary choice for searching for an appropriate motor for this
launch vehicle because of its historical reliability, as well as relative ease of use when compared to other solid
motor manufacturers. In addition, various members of the team have had multiple experiences with using
different class Cesaroni motors; adding an extra set of secureness in using the chosen motor. The
specifications of this motor as provided by the manufacturer are outlined in the table below.
Total Impulse (N-s)/(lb-s)
Maximum Thrust (N)/(lb)
Average Thrust (N)/(lb)
4263.1/958.4
1672.5/376.4
1349.6/303.4
Total Burntime (s)

ISP (s)
3.16
228.2
Table 11: Cesaroni L1350 data
Many different motors were simulated as the final launch vehicle design matured to its current state. One of
the most critical parameters considered was the maximum height of 5,600 feet the competition guidelines
stated the launch vehicle could not exceed. The design of the air braking system that has been incorporated
requires the launch vehicle apogee to be above the one mile goal. This gives the launch vehicle a narrow
window, between 5,280 and 5,600 feet, in which the AirBrake flaps can change the vehicles real time
apogee. Given this window, it was critical to the team that the apogee targeted by the launch vehicle is as
close as possible to the 5,600 feet limit within a small margin of error; without exceeding this value.
Therefore, various iterations were done; where the team used total launch vehicle mass and motor selection,
or the thrust to weight ratio, to find an acceptable apogee height. Further analysis of this can be seen in the
mission performance section of this report.
FULL LAUNCH VEHICLE ASSEMBLY
Figure 42: Overall Launch Vehicle Dimensions
WORKMANSHIP
The degree of skill to which the full and sub-scale are being held to is high. Followed is a break down
on the workmanship put into the launch vehicle.
Commercially available parts:
Any parts which are commercially available are used. This allows parts to be held with a high
manufacturing tolerance and usually come painted to protect them from the Florida weather. Parts include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Hinges
Nosecone
Mounting hardware
Airbrake lead screw
Engine retainer
Parts for rover
Bearings
Custom ordered parts:

Parts which cannot be bought commercially and need to hold high dimensional tolerance will be
ordered custom. This sources the part or job to a more experienced company. This is done because lack of
proper machines or our teams time is best focus elsewhere.
Parts include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bulkheads
Custom cut fins
Custom cut Airbrake airframe section
Custom cut frame members for AGSE
In-house machined parts:

Parts which are to complex or too expensive to be custom ordered or commercially available are
manufactured in house using a student machine shop. To insure good workmanship of manufactured parts
only experienced machinists on our team are allowed to use these machines. This insure the quality of the
part and also more important the safety of the user.
Detail drawing a made and machinist are expected to hold required tolerances. After part is made
machinist team members are required to sign their name on the drawings insuring they are well made. Also
CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machines are used, for example a CNC mill is being used to machine our
Airbrake flaps.
Parts include:
1. Airbrake center nut

2. Airbrake links
3. Airbrake Flaps
3D printed parts:
PantherWorks Space is in process of using 3D printed parts on the launch vehicle. This allows more
freedom when designing and shorting manufacturing time and cost. Our 3D printer can hold tolerances of +/-
.1mm in the Z, and +/- .2mm x and y. This insures all 3D printed parts will mate together. Also due to the 3D
printed material part design can be made very strong.
Parts include:
1. Payload bay
2. Electronics bay
3. Electronics mounts.
The overall assembly of the launch vehicle will be overseen by veteran team members to insure
newer members learn the proper assembly methods. Also, assembly will be supervised by the safety officer
to insure no safely rules a violated. This, coupled with our manufacturing, allows us to have a high degree of
workmanship.
PLANNED FUTURE WORK

Component
Multiple ground ejection tests are occurring and are planned to further test the cable cutting method of
recovery. This will include: different zip ties, parachutes folding, and gun power charges. Also sub-scale
launches are plan to further test the cable cutting method of deployment of the main parachute.
Functional
Subscale static airbrake will be tested at different launch angles to compare effects on stability on sub-scale
launch vehicle.
Figure 43: Varying angle will be tested
Once full-scale airbrake subsystem is competed functional testing will occur. Verifying calculated angler
velocity of flaps opening. This will also test our computer calculation speed and our true resolution of the
stepper motor once in a system with the airbrake. Then a full-scale launch is planned with a working airbrake
system.
Static
Airbrake lead screw will be statically loaded for load seen under normal operation and worse case scenarios.
Also each flap will be loaded to insure little to no bending and cracking occurs.
MANUFACTURING
Component
As of now component wise, no new radical components will be added. Work will continue on father detailing
existing components and producing engineering drawings. Then manufacturing will start full swing.
PantherWork space team member will flow engineering drawings for launch vehicle assembly. This
allows for a complete assembly for each subsystem no even out any small components. Finally assembly will
start by using a full one to one scale drawing as our assembly guild. Then the subsystems join together to
make the finally full assembly. (Similar to figure shown below).
Figure 44: Example of 1 to 1 scale drawing
Nosecone
The nosecone is being purchased with aluminum tip no manufacturing is required. Nosecone needs
to be cut to allow payload bay to be placed inside. This will be done on a lathe with the required tools. The
lathe will allow the work on the nosecone to be done well.
Figure 45: Example of a nosecone being worked on a lathe
Airframe
All phenolic airframe tubes first will be sanded then cleaned. This is done to insure proper adhesion between
the carbon fiber epoxy and the airframe tube. Then carbon fiber sleeve will wrap around it and we will epoxy
it. Then cover the airframe with large diameter heat shrink warp and using a heat gun, apply heat making the
heat shrink contract, which applies pressure on the curing epoxy. After curing a smooth carbon fiber
reinforced airframe tube is done, ready to be cut to desired dimension.
Parachute
The parachute bay manufacturing will begin by gathering up all engineering drawings. Then marking the
carbon fiber reinforced airframe to the length of the parachute bay. Then a .5 hole is drilled in the middle of
the bulkhead allowing the eyebolt to pass through. Then placing the bulkhead in the proper distance in the
parachute bay. Then carefully sanding the inside then will allow a good epoxy bond. Epoxying the bulkhead in
place will then secure it in place. The eyebolt will be secured in the bulk head with locking hex nut.
Electronics Bay
The e-bay housing is now undergoing detail modeling on the mounting location for all electrical
components and computers. As well as wring paths to the rest of the launch vehicle.
Planned manufacturing is the main structure of the E-bay will be 3D printed out of ABS plastic. This
will require very little manufacturing work. Then all electrical components will be mounted to their location
by holes 3D printed out in the main structure.
The e-bay structure will sit in a coupler. Coupler will have 2 rails attached and e-bay structure will
slide in.
AirBrake
AirBrake is now undergoing selection of parts to order and the producing engineering drawings.
AirBrake flaps are undergoing small design changes (shown in airbrake section) to improve their efficiency
and increase stability.
Planned manufacturing is taking the lessons learned from the assembly of the AirBrake for sub-scale
launch vehicle. The center nut will be manufactured first, followed by the links which open and close the
AirBrake. Then a center hole will be drilled in the center of two .5in thick bulkhead. The center nut is now
threaded on the lead screw. The lead screw will then be installed on bearings house in at the ends in the
bulkheads and the links are installed to the center link. Then the flaps are mated to the center links.
Followed by the stepper driving shaft being mated to the lead screw.
Flaps are manufactured first by cutting their shape from a reinforced carbon fiber airframe. Then
they are fixed to a CNC mills cutting table and the airbrake geometry can be machined. Then the hinges and
center link mounting points are attached. This completes the manufacture of the airbrake bay.
Propulsion
The manufacturing of the propulsion sub-system is standard compared to other propulsion sub-systems. A
length of reinforced carbon fiber will be cut to the length of our propulsion bay. Bulkheads, coupler, and
motor mount tube will go into place and be epoxied. Fins will be placed in precut slots in the airframe and be
both epoxied and filleted.
INTEGRITY OF DESIGN
AirBrake Subsystem
Figure 46: AirBrake Side-view
Figure 47: Full AirBrake Bay Assembly
Figure 48: AirBrake System Operational Diagram
Subsystem Characteristics
The AirBrake section is 21.50 inches long by 6 inch diameter airframe.
Figure 49: System Components
Component
1 Bulkhead
2 Bearings
3 Flap link
4 Screw nut
5 Screw
6 Carbon fiber Flap
7 Flap hinge
8 Airframe
9 Stepper Motor
10- Link to flap connector
Function
Separates the airbrake system
Allows the Screw to rotate with minimal friction
Transfers motion to flaps
Rides on screw allowing for transfer of rotational
motion to liner
Extends rotation from motor allows nut to move on
it.
Provides drag force at different angles
Allows flap to rotate open
Main structure
Allows precise control of flaps
Allows mounting of flap to link
Table 12: AirBrake Components and Function
Flap Motion
Figure 50: AirBrake Closed
Figure 51: AirBrake Open
Subsystem Components
Bulkhead
The bulkhead closest to the engine bay will be made of G 10 fiberglass in order to be able to handle
the thrust rating of our chosen engine. The bulkhead on which the stepper motor will be mounted will be G
10 fiberglass as well. Since the lead screw will be built into the stepper motor the G-10 fiberglass has to
withstand the loads. G-10 fiberglass has proven to be able to withstand high loads.
Lead Screw
Figure 52: Lead Screw with Nut
A steel lead screw will be the backbone of the airbrake section. The lead screw will be able to
translate turning motion into linear motion and will allow our airbrakes to go from closed to open fairly
quickly.
Force Calculations
Calculated theoretical critical velocities are carried out for the case when both ends of a screw are
fixed into bearings, as it is in our specific application. However, the teams research has found that maximum
velocity should be less than 80% of this calculated value.
Critical speed refers to the RPM at which the natural frequency of a rotating shaft will occur. This
vibration, also called resonance, will occur regardless of the orientation of the leadscrew. The critical speed
also applies to rotating nuts about a lead screw.
=
4.76 106
2
d = Minor Diameter of Screw

L = Distance between nut bearing
N = Fixity type
= 0.25 for fixed-free
= 1.00 for supported-supported
= 2.00 for fixed-supported
= 4.00 for fixed-fixed
Figure 53: End Fixity Factor
Critical speed (RPM)
23056.3
Root diameter of screw (in)

End fixity factor
Length (in)
0.31
1
8
Table 13: Screw Critical Speed Calculations
As can be seen from the table above, the maximum stable RPM of this screw is over 23,000 RPM. For
the given application, the screw is never expected to go above this value.
Column Strength Calculation

Column strength refers to the maximum load a lead screw can withstand in compression before
failing. Compression loads that exceed the column strength will cause the lead screw to buckle, or bend. Even
the slightest bend can ruin a leadscrew, and threaten the AirBrake system. The following equation was used
to calculate maximum column strength:
=
14.03 106 4
2
After calculation, it was determined that the column strength in the screw is 2024.53 lbs.
Power Calculations
Calculating minimum power output to translate the load provides a starting point for specifying the
rest of the system's components. The equation which follows was used to find the minimum power output.
=
Where F is the load, S is distance traveled, and t is required time to get there.
Calculating minimum power output
Time
Distance (in)
Power (W)
4
5
43.78162
Table 14: Power Calculations
Five inches is the distance the nut needs to move to open and close the airbrake, and four sections
were chosen because it can quickly open the Airbrake inflight.
Peak Velocity Calculations

The calculated peak linear velocity for this application was calculated using the following equation:
=
3
2
Where vpk = peak linear velocity in in/s, S is distance traveled, and t is required time to get there.
peak linear velocity (in/s)
1.875
Table 15: Peak linear velocity
This shows the peak linear velocity for the given power output would be 1.875 in/s. This peak
velocity will allow the flaps to be fully opened in 2.5 seconds. The team is aiming for an ideal velocity of 1.25
in/s, which allow the flaps to fully open or close in 4 seconds.
Minimum Required Pitch

The following equation is used to calculate the minimum pitch needed to keep the leadscrew speed
at approximately 2,000 rpm. The 2,000 RMP value is based on the selected motor, which is discussed further
below.
=
60

Where is minimum pitch needed and vpk is the peak linear velocity in in/sec.
Minimum pitch (in.)
Maximum Screw rpm
0.05625
2000
Table 16: Pitch Calculation
The minimum distance that the screw would need to advance in one revolution is 0.05625 inches.
Using these calculations, the team will be able to soundly choose the proper screw for the needed
requirements.
Torque Calculations
The torque required to lift or lower a load can be calculated by equation shown below.
=
Where is Total force (lbs.), L= Lead (distance that a screw, or nut, advances in one revolution), e=
efficiency (no units, use 0.9 for ball screws assemblies). The maximum amount of load the flaps will ever
experience is 310 lbs; therefore, this was used as the selected load for the torque calculations.
Force Input
310 lbs
Pitch
Torque Needed
0.05625 in
54.17897 oz*in
Table 17: Torque from inputted force
If the torque of the motor is known, the equation above can be rearranged to solve for maximum
lifting load as follows:
=
Where is motor torque

Input Torque
Pitch
Output Force
75
0.05625
1908.88
0.529616
1.42875
429.1333
Table 18: Force from inputted torque
The output force of 429 pounds is 119 pounds greater than the worst case scenario, allowing for
there to be a sufficiently large amount of play area in the case of any emergency. As a reference, the above
force and torque calculations are for a worst case scenario if the Airbrake system were to deploy at a
maximum velocity. Under nominal operating conditions, the system is never expected to experience this type
of load.
Lead Screw FEA Analysis

In order to have a successful AirBrake system, the lead screw must be able to withstand the drag
induced by the flaps and the load from the thrust of launch vehicle engine. To check that the screw would be
able to withstand these, FEA simulations were run. The thread of the screw was ignored to save on
computation time.
Figure 54: FEA of basic steal lead screw
FEA analysis of our lead screw under a worst case a scenario load resulted in a maximum stress of
8.615 ksi. The yield strength for this alloy of steel is 51 ksi, giving the lead screw a factor of safety value of 5.7.
FEA analysis was also run for an aluminum lead screw for comparison purposes in the following
figure.
Figure 55: FEA of aluminum screw
The aluminum lead screw also did well under a worst case a scenario load. The maximum stress was
9.265 ksi, giving a factor of safety of 4.3. An aluminum screw was considered due to being lighter than its
steel counterpart.
Stepper Motor
A high torque stepper motor will rotate the lead screw, and was chosen due its ability to rotate in
precise angles. This selection will also allow for keeping track of position, which would assist the AirBrake
computer in knowing the location of the flaps at all instants in flight.
Figure 56: Selected Stepper Motor
This motor was selected dude to its high torque, compact size, low weight, and low inertia, which
can be seen in the following specifications table.
Table 19: Stepper Motor Specifications
Figure 57: Stepper Motor Dimensions
Figure 58: Torque vs. RPM
Bearings
Figure 59: Left - SBACB606DD-20 1/4 I.D bearing housing. Right - 6383K214 1/4 I.D bearing
60: Left - SBACB606DD-20 1/4 I.D bearing housing. Right - 6383K214 1/4 I.D bearing
Bearings where chosen due to being inexpensive and easy to replace. In addition, they allow low
fiction rotation of the drive screw. The 6383K214 bearing has a maximum dynamic load capacity of 356 lbs,
which surpasses the amount of load this subsystem is ever expected to encounter. The majority of the
loading will be in the axial direction, allowing the transfer of loads to the housing of the bearing.
Bearing housing for the SBACB606DD-20 is 2017 aluminum alloy. This was chosen over steel for the
purpose of saving weight while still maintaining structural integrity. 2017 aluminum also has good
machinability and mechanical properties.
Flap Linkages
Figure 61: AirBrake Flap Linkages
The linkages between the lead nut and the AirBrake flaps will be an aluminum link. This link allows
the transfer of linear motion to the rotational motion causing the flaps to open. Link size is about 5in long
which was determined by computer aided design, which allowed for optimization of the maximum flap
opening angle.
7075 T6 Aluminum was selected because of its low density when compared to steel. Also, it is one of
the stronger grades of Aluminum and is easily machine-able, allowing for flexibility when machining.
Figure 62: Link FEA
FEA was run on the airbrake links.

= ( )/3
The load was the drag force seen by the drag brakes at max angle minus the drag on the launch vehicle, all
dived by 3. This gave a force of about 77 lbf. One end was fixed simulating lead screw not moving. The other
end was given a sinusoidal bearing load of 77 lbf. The link material is 7075 T6 and has a length of 5in and a
width of 0.5in and a material thickness of 1/8in.
Figure 63: Flap Link FEA
A stress concentration appears as expected. This is where the pin joining the two flaps to the links makes
contact with the link.
Figure 64: Factor of Safety plot
The minimum FOS obtain was 14. This was at the location shown in the figure above and the other high spot
of stress is the other end of the link which is another stress concentration.
With a FOS of 14 this link is insured to handle all compressive drag loads experienced. Loads to put
this member in tension are not expected to be seen by the component.
Flap Mounting and Geometry
Figure 65: Flap Hinge Mounting
AirBrake flaps will be mounted on one end by hinges, which allow the flaps to rotate through their
range of motion easily. The hinges to be used will be standard door/cabinet hinges, which was decided upon
in order to reduce cost and allow for the hinges to be easily replaceable in case of any unforeseen
emergency. Hinges will be secured onto the bulkhead and the flaps using standard fastening hardware.
Figure 66: AirBrake Hinges
Figure 67: AirBrake System Flaps
The AirBrake flaps will open onto the free stream of air, inducing drag on the launch vehicle. This
action will slow down the vehicle, allowing it to accurately reach the target altitude. The flaps will be
cylindrically shaped, in order to minimize drag when in the closed position.
The flaps will be constructed much like the construction of the airframe, with a section of phenolic tubing
wrapped in carbon fiber. The flaps will an addition layer of carbon fiber because of the holes being added to
improve stability. This method strengthens the flaps to be able to withstand the expected loads.
Figure 68: AirBrake Flap section cut
The AirBrake flap will be attached with a pin connection, which will allow for removal of the flap to
either perform repairs or access the internal components of the bay. The following figure demonstrates the
mass properties of the flap design.
Figure 69: Flap Mass Properties
Changes since PDR

Overall the airbrake subsystem as stayed the same. Most changes have been in final decision on part section.
One change is the move over from stepper motor and lead screw being joined together to obtaining a
stepper motor with a lead screw built in.
Figure 70: Stepper motor with built-in lead screw
This allows the Airbrake mechanism to be much simpler. Now we dont have to mate the motor to the lead
screw and if we need to remove the either they come out as any assembly. Also the stepper motor; lead
screw combination can handle expected loads better.
Further changes were refinement of flap attachment to hinges and links, as can be seen in the image below.
Figure 71: Flap to link and hinge mounts.
These parts allow a strong attachment of the flap to the launch vehicle and as you can see in figure below
they solve the problem of mating a flat piece to a round surface.
Figure 72: Round backside of flap mounts
AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS
The key factor of this system is having the rocket be aware of its current trajectory through a serious
of recurring in flight calculations. If the estimated apogee height of the rocket, at any given time, is greater
than the targeted altitude; the flaps will deploy themselves. This will induce an extra drag force on the rocket,
consequently slowing down its ascent and decreasing its apogee height. If the system calculated that the
rocket is on an optimal trajectory, the flaps will stay in place and not deploy. The table below gives a general
overview of the hand calculations the AirBrake system will need to make to achieve its purpose.
Figure 73: Proposed First Iteration Drag Force Calculation
The flight computer will gather the necessary data, such as the launch vehicle altitude, velocity,
orientation, acceleration, and location. It will gather this data from the TeleMega flight computer. Using this
acquired data, a second computer called the airbrake computer will process the data and take into account
aerodynamic forces to simulate the rockets projected altitude and trajectory.
If the highest point on the calculated trajectory is over one mile in altitude, the computer will
calculate the amount of drag force needed to hit that target altitude and deploy flaps as necessary. As vehicle
velocity decreases and more drag force is be needed; the flaps will be extended to full deployment. This will
provide maximum amount of drag force.
Since the airbrake computer will start to process data after engine cut off we may safely assume that
there is no thrust acting on the launch vehicle. Thus we can start with:
=
Where drag is:
And weight is
= sin
Making the appropriate substitutions will leave this derived equation for acceleration:
1
2
(2 ) sin
=
The area (A) is a based on the positon of the AirBrake flaps at the time, where 0 degrees would be
only the cross sectional area of the rocket, and 90 degrees would be cross sectional area of the rocket
plus the area of the flaps. The velocity would be inputted real time from our flight computer, which would
also calculate the coefficient of drag as it varies with the positon of the flaps.
This coefficient of drag will also be calculated by extensive CFD simulations. The airbrake computer
will use this and test data from sub-scale and full scale launches.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis

The preliminary aerodynamics were teste through the use of flow simulation software. The launch
vehicle was simulated with the air speed after engine cut off of 770 ft/s, obtained from Rocksim
simulations. This airspeed was chosen due to the fact this would give the max drag force every experience by
the launch vehicle. With this drag force the team can calculate failure modes. Drag force, coefficient of drag
and lift, turbulence, flow separation, path lines, and moments were the main parameters being observed. For
all the following figures, the Z axis is taken to be axial with the launch vehicle.
Figure 74: Flap Dimensions
The AirBrake flap will be relatively large due to the increased ability it would provide to generate
drag at slower velocities. As the launch vehicle approaches apogee, its velocity is greatly decreased when
compared to the velocity at engine cut off. So a larger airbrake flap will increase its effectiveness when
close to apogee.
CFD information
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) uses numerical analysis and algorithms to solve and analyze
problems that involve fluid flows. During PDR PantherWorks space used Solidworks 2014 flow simulation for
many quick iterative simulation and data gathering. For CDR PantherWorks space used ANSYS 15.0 Fluent.
ANSYS fluent solver more accurate results at the cost of long solution time.
ANSYS Fluent solver was pressure based naiver stokes solver. The viscous model was k-epsilon realizable with
non-equilibrium wall functions. K- Epsilon was chosen because its an accurate model and there is various
amount of information online about the model.
Figure 75: Launch vehicle in solver.
Solution methods where changed to a coupled scheme. This allows the program to use more
resources or member of the computer in other to solve faster. Also solution was first calculated with a 100
iterations with momentum, turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent dissipation rate, all selected to first order
upwind for spatial discretization. This allowed fluent to solve the first 100 relatively quickly. Then another
500 iterations where run with momentum, turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent dissipation rate, all
selected to second order upwind for spatial discretization. This allowed for more accurate solution.
Mesh
Figure 76: Launch vehicle mesh refinement.
Figure above shows mesh refinement. The lager box as an element size of 10mm and the smaller box
is refinement over the airbrake with element size of 6mm. This small element size allows accurate results
around the airbrake.
CFD Analysis
The goal for these CFD analysis was to increase flap efficiency and stability. For a base line first
simulation ran was with the launch vehicle with no airbrakes (shown in figure below).
Figure 77: Baseline CFD test.
For a drag comparison a Rocksim simulation was done at 770 ft/s and the drag obtained was 314 N
or 70.59 pounds. Using ANSYS fluent on the baseline drag force of 311.5 was obtain (see figure below).
Table 20: Baseline launch vehicle CFD drag results.
This gives us a percent error of 0.77% assuming Rocksim results are accurate. Center of pressure fell within a
10% accuracy assuming Rocksim is correct.
Figure 78: Velocity Magnitude for non-modified vehicle.
Shown above is a velocity magnitude for a non-modified launch vehicle with airbrake angle at 30
degrees and airspeed at 770 ft/s. Drag is shown in figure below as
Table 21: Drag in Newtons
Drag obtained is 702.15 N or 157.8 lbf.

To increase stability during use flap corners where rounded to help with turbulence at the corners.
Figure 79: Airbrake with rounded corners.
The corners where rounded to a radius of .5in. The obtain drag value is shown below.
Table 22: CFD Pressure Data
This modification has lowered the drag value by a small amount because of the reduced area.
Figure 80: Velocity magnitude with rounded flaps.
Figure 81: non-modified flap (left) rounded flap (right).
From the comparison of velocity magnitude the round have a smaller velocity wake behind.
Figure 82: Contours of static pressure.
From the static pressure one can see the low pressure behind the flaps during a 30 degree opening. This
remains largely unchanged from non-modified.
Figure 83: non-modified flap (top) rounded flap (bottom).
From non-modified to rounded tip flaps little change can be seen in turbulent kinetic energy. Both
have a turbulent kinetic energy value of 4730 m^2/s^2.
This shows more changes must be made to obtain a more stable and efficient flaps.
Figure 84: Flaps with 0.25in holes.
Next 0.25in holes where added to the flap. The idea is adding holes will help with flow separation
and forcing the flow through the holes will help increase drag. Drag was increased from the just rounded tips.
Obtained drag value is around 705N and our center of pressure moved up around 3 inches but still keeping a
good static stability margin.
Figure 85: Magnitude Velocity Airbrake Angle: 30 Deg rounded corners with .25in holes .
Figure 86: Figure 95: Magnitude Velocity Airbrake Angle: 30 Deg rounded corners with .25in holes .
Shown in figures above the airflow enters the holes but because of the small size gets pushed down.
The vector plot of velocity in the figure below shows this.
Figure 87: Velocity Vectors colored by velocity Magnitude (m/s)
Figure 88: No holes velocity magnitude vector plot.
Looking at the area behind the flap in the figure above one can see the high velocity as the flow
accelerates. In the flap with 0.25in hole you can see the airflow has to accelerate less because a good part of
the airflow is going through the flaps.
Figure 89: Static Pressure (Pascal)
Static pressure decrease compared to a no holes design. This this is due to some of the airflow now
can pass through the flap.
The .25in holes also help with prevent flow separation shown in figure below.
Figure 90: Pathlines Colored by Magnitude (m/s)
The 0.25in holes convey some of the pathlines through the flap avoiding separation at the top of the
flap.
Figure 91: No holes rounded (top) 0.25in holes bottom.
The 0.25in holes have an effect on turbulent kinetic energy behind the flaps as shown in figure
above. There is less of red areas behind the airbrake flap. This is good, means less turbulent unstable air
around the fins. Also the turbulent energy on the flaps with holes is overall less than no holes.
Figure 92: No holes and just rounded (top) 0.25 holes (bottom)
Shown in figures above is a 3D iso of turbulent kinetic energy. The flaps with holes have a reduced
turbulent wake. This is good as it keeps laminar airflow over the fins.
Figure 93: 0.25 holes flap (top) no holes (bottom)
In the figures above one can clearly see the effect of holes on turbulence eddy dissipation. Shown
the lowest range of eddy formed. All higher range of eddies will form with in this zone. Once can see the flaps
with 0.25in holes has a reduce turbulence zone than with no holes. Also the turbulence area is much further
away from the fins than with no holes.
This lead to another flap design iteration.
Figure 94: 0.5in holes with rounded corners.
With this iteration the hole size was increased to 0.50in and the number of holes was decreased in
other to fit inside the flap area.
Figure 95. 3rd flap iteration.
The drag obtain with this 0.50 holes flap was 726.81N or 163.39 pound-force. This is a 4% increase in
drag from a no hole design.
Figure 96: No holes average center of pressure.
Figure 97: 0.50 holes average center of pressure.
CFD results show the no holes to 0.50in holes on the flaps moves the center of pressure back by
around 5in. This adds to increase stability during airbrake operation. Our center of pressure will vary from the
airbrake opening and closing. Closed the center of pressure can be taken from Rocksim CP calculations. At a
30 degree and at 770ft/s airspeed this center of pressure can be taken from Ansys Fluent CFD.
Figure 98: Contours of velocity magnitude.
Figure 99: Contours of velocity magnitude Top (.50 holes) Bottom (0.25 holes)
Shown above is zoomed in contours of airspeed over the airbrake section. The 0.50in holes tell to
allow more air through than the 0.25hole making the wake region behind more stable.
Figure 100: 0.25in holes (top) 0.25in holes bottom.
Analysis of the turbulent kinetic energy between the 0.25 holes and the 0.5in holes shows a
reduction in turbulent kinetic energy in the wake of 0.50in hole flaps. Also the wake which is present has
moved up a further way from the fins.
Figure 101: 0.25in holes (top) 0.25in holes bottom zoomed in.
Closer investigation showed turbulence increased in the intimate area behind the flap with 0.50
holes in but greatly decreased in the following wake region. The the flap with 0.25in holes had a less
turbulent area intimately following the flaps but showed a greatly increased turbulent area following the flap.
Figure 102: Comparison of turbulent intensity.
In the figures above one can see the turbulence intensity has decreased for the 0.50in hole flap. This
leads the team to believe the turbulence will not impact the fins in any significant ways.
Figure 103: Comparison of velocity vectors.
The velocity vectors on the 0.25in holes displays the airflow tend to dive down toward the center of
the launch vehicle and tend to circulate up, while the airflow on the 0.50in hole flap then to just dip a small
amount and want to circulate much more rearward than the 0.25in holes vectors would.
Figure 104: Airflow straight line path.
This is because the flaps at this angle only have a 0.14in gap at a 0.5in hole, which air can easily pass
through without curving to the shape of the flap. At 0.25in there is no gap.
Figure 105: Airflow pathlines
The figures above display the pathlines the fluid would take. Again the 0.50in holes reduce the eddy
formed behind the flap. The larger holes allow more airflow through not allowing for the hole area behind
the flaps to undergo flow separation. This reduces turbulence and helps increase the stability of the launch
vehicle.
Compare this with a no hole design; and you can clearly see the flow separation and large vortex
form.
Figure 106: Vortex forming
Figure above shows the high turbulent kinetic energy on a flap with no holes extending past the flap tips.
After CFD analysis was ran the choice was clear. We would add minimum 0.50in holes to the airbrake
flaps to improve stability and increase flap drag. The figures below shows the final assembly of the airbrake
and flaps.
Figure 107: Airbrake Flap rev-2
Figure 108: Airbrake with 0.50in holes on flaps.
Coding Analysis
Code Development
The design of the air-braking systems code can be divided into several steps and sub-steps.
These steps are listed below.
1. Initial Altitude Prediction
2. Onboard Altitude Prediction
3. Error Correction
4. Integration
These steps are not necessarily the order in which the system was designed. Nonetheless,
they provide a good structure for understanding the way the system works.
Initial Altitude Prediction
As stated previously, for this system to work correctly the vehicle needs to overshoot the
given one mile apogee height under any circumstances. To accurately predict the altitude in
varying conditions the team used the program Rocksim, which is known to be reliable and highly
accurate. Throughout the entire code design process Rocksim will be used as our control to test
different methods of altitude prediction against before any actual launch tests occur. Rocksim
allows the user to change many variables outside of rocket configuration including
environmental variables like wind speed, thermal occurrences, humidity, and many others. For
this reason, we are assuming our Rocksim predictions to be almost completely accurate.
To determine what motor we needed we ran simulations in worst case scenarios to find
what total impulse/thrust we would need to ensure we at least reach 1 mile. This includes excess
launch angle, launching with the wind, and max allowable wind speed (25 mph). From this we
were able to determine a max altitude and therefore determine a suitable size for the brakes, as is
explained further in the sections prior.
Onboard Coefficient of Drag Prediction
Once the vehicle is launched and the motor is finished firing, the AirBrake software will
begin iterations. The purpose of the software is to actuate the flaps to induce drag. In order to
achieve this, the software will iteratively predict what drag is required to attain an apogee of one
mile. Ideally, we would use the highly accurate methods which programs like Rocksim use to
determine maximum altitude. However, this code, instead of predicting max altitude, is assigning
maximum altitude as a static variable of one mile and solving for the drag required to reach that
maximum altitude. Because Rocksims methods are numerical in nature, they cannot be solved
backwards and are not suitable for our application. Instead we will begin by using the kinematic
equation for projectile motion with air resistance, shown below.
This is the original equation where given values of mass, gravity, velocity, air density,
cross sectional area, and coefficient of drag; the apogee height can be determined. Solving for k
in the equation above, the equation below is obtained. This equation can be easily solved for
Cd*A (coefficient of drag times cross-sectional area) and will be the primary equation in the
code.
While these equations are fairly accurate, they would have a tendency to predict a higher
apogee than reality and therefore cause the brakes to over-extend and the rocket to undershoot.
To combat this, we will be including error correction methods which will be discussed in a later
section.
Determination of Coefficient of Drag
Once the rocket is in flight and the computer has predicted the value for Cd*A required to
reach one mile, the computer will then open the flaps until they match that value. To determine
how much the flaps need to be opened, information needs to be obtained on values of Cd*A for
varying flap positions. For this we decided to run many flow simulations on the launch vehicle
for flap positions starting at 0 degrees all the way to maximum. From this data, and the values of
air density and launch vehicle velocity, we can obtain accurate values for Cd*A at all possible
flap positions.
An additional consideration to take into account during this data acquisition process is the
effect of velocity on the Cd*A value. We will test the same flap position at several different
velocities to determine if a constant value of Cd*A can be used or if another dimension of data
needs to be included in the code.
Once all the data is obtained it can be organized in two different ways. The first would be
to include it in an array within the code. Depending on the rockets current state, the correct
value can be found in a table form. The other way would be to create a best fit curve for the date
and obtain the correct corresponding flap position using an equation. Both of these methods will
be evaluated to determine which is more efficient while the code is running.
Error Correction
Assumption of Projectile Motion with Drag
The assumption of projectile motion with drag allows us to drastically simplify our code
and ensure quick performance. The kinematic equations can be separated into component form
and the horizontal component can be neglected. While this makes coding easy, it is provides a
large source of error in accurately predicting the correct coefficient of drag value. Not only does
it neglect atmospheric variances, but also the effect of the relationship between the center of
pressure and center of gravity on the rocket. Having a Cg located forward of the Cp, increases
stability but introduces a moment on the rocket which will cause the actual apogee of the rocket
to be lower than the one predicted.
Global error correction variable
Once the rocket is constructed and the code is ready, a flight test will be performed.
Based on the variation between the actual achieved apogee and the target of one mile, a final
correction variable can be implemented to calibrate the entire system to be more accurate. This is
based on the assumption that we may end up with a precise system that always tends to
overshoot or undershoot. This global error correction should fix that by altering the target apogee
slightly depending on the systems performance. Implementing this type of correction would
require multiple test flight, being overly costly.
The Density Problem
The value of air density to be used during flight will be directly obtained from the flight
computer in real time. This is then used to determine a constant flap position that will
theoretically be maintained until the target apogee is achieved. In reality, density changes with
altitude causing another source of error. To solve this, an average value of air density will be
calculated and used in the code. This can be as simple as using the mean value between the
current density and the density at one mile. Analysis will be done to determine if this would be a
good assumption or not.
Transient Flap Actuation
Another source of error to be addressed is the dynamic movement of the flaps between
fixed positions. This dynamic movement will be taken into account by calculating an average
interim Cd*A value based on the difference between the starting angle and target angle, and
applying it over the time it takes for the flap to actuate.
Integration
Information on the integration of beaglebone, altus metrum, stepper controller, and
stepper motor. Beagle bone will gather velocity tilt angle and altitude from telemega. The
algorithm will then assign a flap angle to the stepper controller.
Pseudo Code
The basic sequence of steps the computer must iteratively perform is listed below.
1. Gather current velocity, tilt angle, and altitude from Telemega.
2. Determine y component of Velocity
3. Determine current air density and create an average value based on current and target
altitude
4. Calculate constant Cd*A needed to achieve apogee
5. Determine brake angle that matches the given value of Cd*A, current velocity, and
current tilt angle.
6. Actuate brake to calculated angle.
a. If brake is already moving to angle, just update target angle.
b. If brake is moving away stop the previous action and go to new angle.
Test Code
Below is a sample of code written in MATLAB that contains the equation for calculating
the value of Cd*A necessary to reach one mile apogee. The results check is to ensure that the
original function used to solve for k is still accurate. In solving for k, a new function is
introduced called the lambert W function, or product log function. In MATLAB so far, this
function takes some amount of time to solve which may be problematic in the future onboard
code.
% Altitude Targeting using Projectile Motion with Drag
clc
clear all
%Input Variables
A = 0.19635;
y = 8000;
v = 800;
m = .93243;
g = 32.18504;
p = 0.002134;
%Function Split into parts cuz matlab is annoying.
f1 = (-m*(v^2)*lambertw(-1,(-2*(exp((-2*g*y)/(v^2)))*g*y)/(v^2)));
f2 = 2*g*m*y;
f3 = 2*(v^2)*y;
k = (f1-f2)/f3;
Cd = (k*2)/(p*A);
disp ('Necessary Cd To Achieve 1 mile at current conditions');
disp (Cd);
%Results Check
CdT = 0.1168;
kt = 0.5*p*CdT*A;
yt = (m/(2*kt))*log(((m*g)+(kt*v^2))/(m*g));
disp ('Max Altitude');
disp (yt);
Below is an excel table used to predict apogee with varying methods. Listed so far is
apogee using simple projectile motion with no drag, projectile motion with drag, and also apogee
if the current measured drag were constant. This chart will eventually be used in the
determination of error correction factors when comparisons to Rocksim are made.
Input Variables
SI
Variable
Coefficient of Drag
Cd
Rocket diameter
d (mm)
Cross Section Area
A (m^2)
English
0.32 Cd
98 d (in)
0.007543 A (ft^2)
W (lb)
Weight
Mass
m (kg)
Velocity
V (m/s)
4.535931 m (slug)
30 V (ft/s)
0
Angle (deg)
gravity
g (m/s^2)
Cd*A
(m^2)
9.81 g (ft/s^2)
0.002414 ft^2
0.4
6
0.19635
30
0.93243
800
0
32.18504
0.07854
Air Density
(kg/m^3)
1.1 (slug/ft^3)
0.002134
k (kg/m)
0.001328 k (slug/ft)
8.38E-05
Current drag
1.194805
53.64207
Current drag acceleration
0.263409
57.52932
Max Altitude
Ymax (m)
45.26652 Ymax (ft)
5702.159
Max Alt w/o Drag
Ymax
45.87156 Ymax
9942.508
Max Alt w/ Current Drag
Ymax
44.67207 Ymax
3566.876
Table 23: AirBrake Computer Inputs
Further Full-scale Code Development

The brakes for full scale will utilize a stepper motor to control the degree to which the flaps will open. The
team will be using a commercial part to power and control the stepper motor named EasyDriver. By using
EasyDriver, the launch vehicle can be powered by an external power source rather than relying on the flight
computer to power the system. The flight computer the team is going to use is based off the BeagleBone
platform with a custom program to communicate with the Easy Driver through the use of PWM. An example
code for EasyDriver is provided below:
var b = require('bonescript');
// Pin modes for EasyDriver
//stp
b.pinMode("P8_13", b.OUTPUT,
//dir
//MS1
//MS2
//EN
7, 'pullup',
'fast', printStatus);
7, 'pullup',
7, 'pullup',
7, 'pullup',
7, 'pullup',
void loop() {
Airbrakes();
}
void Airbrakes()
{
Serial.println("Alternate between stepping forward and reverse.");
for(x= 1; x<5; x++) //Loop the forward stepping enough times for motion to
be visible
{
//Read direction pin state and change it
state=digitalRead(dir);
if(state == HIGH)
{
digitalWrite(dir, LOW);
}
else if(state ==LOW)
{
digitalWrite(dir,HIGH);
}
for(y=1; y<1000; y++)
{
digitalWrite(stp,HIGH); //Trigger one step
delay(1);
digitalWrite(stp,LOW); //Pull step pin low so it can be triggered again
delay(1);
}
}
Serial.println("Enter new option:");
Serial.println();
}
The Code provided will initialize the proper pins to communicate with EasyDriver allowing the rocket to
control the degrees to which the fins will be deployed.
ASSEMBLY PROCEDURES, INTERFACES, AND INTEGRATION

Nylon shear pins will be used to hold the nosecone to the upper airframe during ascent. At apogee,
the nylon pins will be sheared by the ejection event. This allows for the parachute to be ejected. The
following image outlines the above configuration.
Interfaces
Figure 109: Nosecone Interface
The parachute bay airframe will be secured with the AirBrake bay airframe with four steel pins. The
pins will go through the parachute phenolic airframe and be secured onto the rails on which the electronics
bay will slide. The rails will be secured to the walls of the AirBrake Airframe with high strength epoxy. An L
bracket will be used to mount the rails to the AirBrake bulkhead. This allows any load to be diverted from the
electronics bay to the adjacent bulkhead. The image immediately following demonstrates this interface
configuration.
Figure 110: Parachute Bay to AirBrake Bay Interface
To secure the AirBrake bay to the propulsion bay, and aluminum ring will be manufactured by being
milled. This aluminum ring will act as a center ring joining the two airframes. The airframes will be joined on
the aluminum ring, and secured using set screws on both the AirBrake airframe and the propulsion bay
airframe. This can be seen in the following image.
Figure 111: AirBrake Bay to Propulsion Bay Interface
Launch Load Paths

Load paths are routed through the airframe which are design to handle loads. The propulsion bay
airframe is design to take the load of the motor.
Figure 112: Thrust load path in airbrake.
The thrust load path will pass through the airbrake section, which is the weakest section. This will be
reinforced by the center lead screw which is .31 in thick steel and is rated for 2000 lbf.
Recovery Load Paths
Figure 113: Recovery load paths
At main parachute opening the stopping force of the parachute will be transferred to a steel eyebolt
located in the parachute bay. This eyebolt will be mounted to 0.50in G10 bulk head with screw and nut. The
bulkhead will be attached to the airframe by G5000 epoxy. Epoxy filets will be made to insure the bulkhead is
not sheared off. This will transfer the load to the airframe. Then pins mounted on the airframe between the
airframes of the parachute bay and airbrake bay will transfer the main deployment stopping forces to the
airbrake bay and prevent the airbrake section from detaching.
MOTOR MOUNTING AND RETENTION
Figure 114: Motor placement in bay
Motor will be mounted using a commercially available motor tube. This will insure a good fit for the
motor. The motor tube will have 3 centering rings holding the tube in the propulsion airframe. A thrust plate
will transfer the trust from the motor to the propulsion airframe and then to the rest of the launch vehicle.
The forward bulkhead will be G10. This provides a strong cap in the failure mode that the thrust plate fails.
This well help shield the airbrake section and electronics bay.
Figure 115: Motor retention.
A retention screw will be epoxied on to the motor tube. When motor casing is inserted into airframe
a motor retainer will screw on and hold the motor from falling.
OVERALL MASS STATEMENT
Table 24: Launch Vehicle Component Weights
From the mass analysis conducted by the team, it was found that the launch vehicle could increase up to 20%
of its total current weight and still reach an optimal altitude.
LAUNCH VEHICLE VERIFICATION

The table below outlines the verification of all statements of work provided by the competition for
the launch vehicle design.
Requirement
Number
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Requirement
Design Feature
Verification Method
The vehicle shall deliver the

payload to an apogee altitude of
5,280 feet above ground level
(AGL).
The vehicle has been designed

to a certain length and weight in
order to reach the given apogee
height on an L class motor and
the air braking system.
The apogee height analysis has

be done using software such as
Rocksim, while also being
supported by rough, general
hand calculations for
redundancy. The AirBrake will be
verified with the use of a
computer code to determine in
flight adjustment requirements.
Both systems will be tested
during the subscale flight test.
The vehicle shall carry one

commercially available,
barometric altimeter for
recording the official altitude
used in the competition scoring.
The launch vehicle shall be
designed to be recoverable and
reusable. Reusable is defined as
being able to launch again on
the same day without repairs or
modifications.
The launch vehicle electronics

bay will house two altimeters for
redundancy purposes.
The altimeters will be tested by

inspection upon purchase, in
addition to being tested on the
vehicle subscale flight.
The launch vehicle is being

designed to be a modular
vehicle. Any one section may be
easily replaced with a new
section in an emergency. In
addition, all components in the
vehicle can be accessed and
repaired given any kind of
circumstance on the day of
launch.
The recovery scheme for the
launch vehicle allows for only
one main separation event. The
nosecone will land alongside the
rest of the vehicle tethered by a
shock cord. This corresponds to
only two independent sections.
Manufacturing processes will be

kept secure enough to withstand
the force of launch and landing,
but will be kept simple enough
to allow for repairs. Spare parts
will be available on competition
day for any small, necessary
repairs.
The vehicle will only house one

motor in the main propulsion
bay.
The design of the vehicle will be

inherently limited to one motor
by the construction of only one
propulsion bay.
Each member will practice their
individual tasks multiple times
before launch day, and the
entire team will practice a full
assembly procedure until the
process is smooth and
organized.
The launch vehicle shall have a

maximum of four (4)
independent sections. An
independent section is defined
as a section that is either
tethered to the main vehicle or
is recovered separately from the
main vehicle using its own
parachute.
limited to a single stage.

capable of being prepared for
flight at the launch site within 2
hours, from the time the Federal
Aviation Administration flight
waiver opens.
The entire team will be trained

on vehicle integration and
assembly launch day
procedures.
The shock cord tethering the

nosecone will be purchased to
exceed the force needed to
withstand ejection and landing.
Furthermore, the shock cord will
be tested upon purchase.
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12

capable of remaining in launchready configuration at the pad
for a minimum of 1 hour without
losing the functionality of any
critical on-board component.
capable of being launched by a
standard 12 volt direct current
firing system.
The firing system will be
provided by the NASAdesignated Range Services
Provider.
The launch vehicle shall use a
commercially available solid
motor propulsion system using
ammonium
perchlorate composite
propellant (APCP) which is
approved and certified by the
National Association of
Rocketry (NAR), Tripoli Rocketry
Association (TRA), and/or the
Canadian Association of
Rocketry (CAR).
The total impulse provided by a
launch vehicle shall not exceed
5,120 Newton-seconds (L-class).
All power sources for the on

board flight computers will be
fully charged prior to launch.
Pressure vessels on the vehicle

shall be approved by the RSO
and shall meet the following
criteria:
1.11.1. The minimum factor of
safety (Burst or Ultimate
pressure versus Max Expected
Operating
Pressure) shall be 4:1 with
supporting design
documentation included in all
milestone reviews.
1.11.2. Each pressure vessel
shall include a pressure relief
valve that sees the full pressure
of the tank.
All teams shall successfully
launch and recover a subscale
There are no pressure vessels

present or planned in the
current launch vehicle design.
The propulsion system of the

launch vehicle is being designed
to have the ability of being
launched by a standard 12 volt
direct current firing system.
The ability of all batteries to stay

charged enough to be fully
operational throughout an
hours time will be empirically
tested before the competition
date.
The team will verify this
requirement during the subscale
launch, and before the
competition day launch.
The motor being used for the

launch vehicle is commercially
available for purchase.
Any change in motor choice

between the preliminary and
critical design reviews will entail
only certified, commercially
available motors.
The total impulse on the motor

selected does not exceed the
given value of 5,120 Newton
seconds.
This is verified by the data

provided by the manufacturer.
The specifications of the motor
will be carefully checked if any
change in motor occurs.
Appropriate measures will be
taken if a change in design
requires the presence of a
pressure vessel.
The team has tested a subscale

model.
This launch will serve as a proof

of concept for all pertinent
1.13
model of their full-scale rocket

prior to CDR.
The subscale model should
resemble and perform as
similarly as possible to the fullscale model, however, the fullscale shall not be used as the
subscale model.
All teams shall successfully
launch and recover their fullscale rocket prior to FRR in its
final flight configuration. The
rocket flown at FRR must be the
same rocket to be flown on
launch day
subsystems on the launch

vehicle.
A test launch for the full scale

launch vehicle is planned for mid
February of 2016.
All components of each

subsystem will be tested on the
test flight for verification of all
processes.
Table 25: Vehicle Statement of Work Verification
Subscale Flight Results
Figure 116: Subscale, first launch
SUBSCALE MISSION
The goal for subscale launch was to test the stability of the launch vehicle and to prove
the airbrake mechanism can handle the load experienced. Also to test the cable cutters for our
parachute development system. The stability with the airbrake flaps close is easily calculated
and simulated by programs like Open Rocket and Rocksim. Once the flaps deploy the stability of
the launch vehicle changes. Our sub scale launch is testing a worst case scenario of flaps open
during motor burn. If stability is achieved we can continue forward with the development of the
full scale launch. This test will also reveal if we need to increase our fin size for full scale.
SUBSCALE VEHICLE DESIGN
Figure 117: Subscale Launch Vehicle
The Sub-scale launch vehicle will be the scale of the full scale. was chosen because it
allows a useable size in the internal airframe of 3 inches. This allows use fix our flight computer
and the mechanism for our airbrake.
Nosecone
Figure 118: Subscale Ogive Nosecone
The nosecone for sub scale launch vehicle differs from full scale. This is due to the cost of
obtaining a 3in Von Karman nosecone. Also the fact our subscale will test our airbrake and not
our nosecone allowed use to make this change.
Parachute Bay
Figure 119: Parachute Bay Highlighted
The parachute bay will follow the same construction as in full-scale. The parachute shock cable will be
attached to a steel, nylon coated eyebolt. The eyebolt is rated for a vertical load capacity of 1500 lbs. This
eyebolt will be attached to a quarter inch thick wooden bulkhead and half inch locking hex nut.
At apogee, the flight computer will send a single to blow a black powder charge located
above the payload bulkhead will eject the nosecone from the rest of the launch vehicle airframe.
This will, in turn, pull the main parachute out of the airframe. The main parachute will be ejected
restrained by a plastic cable tie. At 800 feet the flight computer will send a single to an e-match
to cut the zip tie a will releasing the main parachute, allowing it to open.
Figure 120: Recovery System
Figure 121: Eye Bolt
AirBrake
Figure 122: Subscale AirBrake
The airbrake for sub-scale test flight is intended to be fixed during launch. Our team is
testing to see if launch vehicle is stable during launch so electrical-mechanical systems for
airbrake are not installed. Aside from this the airbrake for sub-scale launch is fully movable and
moves between 0 and 55 degrees.
Figure 123: Subscale AirBrake, missing flap covering
The airbrake has 3 aluminum backers which the flap attaches too (shown exposed in
figure 7). These backers add strength to the flap. Flaps will be attached to backer using J-B weld.
Weld has a tensile strength of 3960 PSI which more than enough for this sub scale test flight.
Figure 124: CAD of AirBrake
Figure 125: Subscale AirBrake Drawing
The flap are attached to links (balloon 6 in figure 9) which are attached to a center hub.
The center hub is treaded so as the screw (balloon 4) rotates the center hub moves back and
forth. This allows the flaps to open for sub scale.
Propulsion Bay
Figure 126: Subscale Propulsion
Like the rest of the sub-scale launch vehicle the propulsion bay will be scale to full scale. This
includes fins. This bay also includes a 3d printed thrust plate seen in figure 128. This was done to
experiment with 3D printed launch vehicle components.
Figure 127: 3D Printed Thrust Plate
Electronics
The subscale vehicle was outfitted with a perfect-flight StratoLoggerCF flight computer
to control for in flight ejections of the parachute. The StratoLoggerCF collects flight data
(altitude, temperature, and battery voltage) at a rate of 20 samples per second throughout the
flight and stores them for later download to a computer. It retains data from the most recent 31
flights (up to 9 minutes per flight) even with power removed.
Figure 128: StratoLoggerCF
Recovery System
The subscale vehicle was outfitted with a perfect-flight StratoLoggerCF flight computer
to control for in flight ejections of the parachute (using a 2.25 gram black powder ejection
charge, an equivalent charge to that contained in the motor if motor ejection were used) as well
as activation of the cable cutter charge, a system integrated to allow for the main parachute to act
as its own drogue (further discussed in the recovery system section of this document). Ejection
charge was supposed to blow out the folded parachute at 800ft and then the cable cutter system
cut off the zip ties releasing the parachute.
TEST SITE AND CONDITIONS
Figure 129: Subscale Launch Site
The proposed rocket design subscale model was initially tested at the Central Florida
NEFAR launch site. Upon arrival unusually foggy weather conditions delayed the launch of the
vehicle considerably. Due to concerns of the vehicle drifting laterally into an unrecoverable, and
or unsafe, location the test flight was withheld for some time to allow for improvement of
environmental conditions. It was decided to fly the vehicle on a lower impulse range motor than
originally intended after waiting as long as possible for the weather to improve. This was done in
order to be able to safely perform a test flight and test the systems implemented in the vehicle
dynamically while in flight. Originally the subscale vehicle was intended to fly on a J class blue
streak motor, but due to the safety concerns previously stated it was decided that the rocket
would be flown instead with an I566 VMAX motor, a 3 grain motor with a burn time of 0.7
seconds. The main result that was sought from this test was to see the efficacy of the airbrake
system in reduction of apogee altitude by means of applying a drag force to the rocket while in
flight. The main concern with the airbrake system at this point was whether or not the added drag
on the body of the rocket would interfere with in flight stability, as well as the air flow around
the rocket.
TEST LAUNCH PREPARATION

Upon preparation for launch the airbrake flaps were set, via means of a protractor, to 30
degrees steady, meaning that the flaps were deployed at this angle for the full duration of the
flight. It was insured all flaps where at 30 deg to maintain symmetry. One goal of the test was to
insure stability of the sub-scale launch vehicle.
TEST EVENTS
After launch the vehicle travelled nearly vertically upwards due to lack of wind at the time of the
launch, and quickly entered a low lying layer of fog clouds at about 600-700 feet. From this
point forward visual tracking of the launch vehicle was lost until it descended below the cloud
layer once more. While in the cloud an auditory confirmation of the ejection charge successfully
deploying at apogee was heard. The assumed result at this point was of a successful flight and
ejection of the recovery system. Seconds later however the launch vehicle exited the cloud layer,
descending ballistically towards the ground. It was immediately evident that even though the
altimeter did successfully activate the ejection sequence, some unknown factor prevented the
parachute from ejecting correctly. The launch vehicle landed catastrophically nose first in an
empty field, far from any innocent bystanders, living beings, and or property.
FIRST SUBSCALE LAUNCH RESULTS

The phenolic tubing of the vehicle shattered upon impact due to its brittle qualities, that
while great for compression resistance during launch, lack the ductility to resist a high energy
impact such as that which occurred. The electronics for the launch vehicle being housed in an
electronics bay reinforced by G10 bulkheads, as well as mounted on a plate of G10 survived
mostly intact from the landing and were able to give us usable data for the flight. The propulsion
bay also survived the impact mostly intact and only required a small section to be cut off in order
to return to a useable state for flight. The airbrake bay also survived the landing fairly well
suffering from only some minor bends in one of the aluminum linkages for a flap. Inspection of
the site revealed that the cable cutter charge had indeed successfully cut the cable tie at the
designated 800 feet of altitude during descent, and as such could be ruled out as the cause of the
failure. It should be noted that upon exiting the cloud layer the launch vehicle was visually
confirmed to be unseparated, leading to the parachute not being able to open as it remained
inside the parachute bay. The two prevailing hypotheses as to the cause of the failure are as
follows: 1) The frictional force between the nose cone and the parachute bay was too great. As
such the nosecone only separated enough to vent the gasses from the charge and then, due to the
orientation of the launch vehicle while in flight, closed up again leading the rocket to descend
with a ballistic trajectory. 2) The force of the ejection charge was just large enough to blow a
small vent hole in the phenolic tubing preventing the gasses from pushing out the parachute and
instead allowing them to escape through said hole, ultimately resulting in the failure of the
recovery system to deploy. Which actually occurred is difficult to say as the phenolic body of the
launch vehicle shattered upon impact, making an investigation into the root cause impossible. A
second subscale rocket was built and prepped for another flight.
Figure 130: Remains of first subscale launch
SECOND SUBSCALE LAUNCH

Due to the possibility of the ejection charge damaging the body and causing a failure of
the recovery system this rocket was reinforced along the parachute bay with both fiberglass and
carbon fiber, and the full scale design of the rocket will be equally reinforced to prevent any such
occurrence. Also the 2nd sub-scale was ground eject tested with the day before 2nd test launch
This second subscale launch vehicle was built the same as the first with the only difference being
that this vehicle had a dummy airbrake bay consisting of a simple section of fiberglass reinforced
tubing. This was done in order to get a data set unaffected by the drag force of the airbrake flaps
in order to ascertain their efficacy. The second flight was conducted at the Palm Bay launch site
in South Florida with fairer weather conditions. The launch vehicle was flown on a lower power
2 grain H152 Blue Streak motor in order to account for adverse recovery conditions due to
physical ground features at the launch site. Shown below are the altimeters readings of the two
flights, Figure A referring to the initial failed flight flown at NEFAR, and Figure B referring to
the successful flight conducted at Palm Bay. The Y axis of both references the altitude of the
launch vehicle while in flight, as calculated by the altimeters. The X axis of both references time.
Figure 131: First Subscale Test
Figure 132: Second Subscale Test
As can be seen from the two sets of data, the initial flight of the first test was considerably
shorter due to the recovery system failure. The ballistic behavior of this flight is also nicely
parabolic as would be expected from such a flight. The graph for the second flight however,
Figure B, shows how the deployment of the drogue shortly past apogee destabilized the launch
vehicle as can be seen by the elongated resultant slope. This is further elongated after the cable
cutter charge deploys the main parachute in the second test flight, confirming the efficacy of the
reefed recovery system as an effective means of recovery of the launch vehicle. Shown below are
the exact apogee values as calculated by the altimeter; referring to the initial flight at NEFAR
and referring to the second flight at Palm Bay.
Figure 133: First subscale test.
Figure 134: Second subscale test
TEST RESULTS
The first test launch was on a more powerful motor and reached an altitude of 1438 feet in 9.35secs.
The
2nd
test launch on a less powerful motor reached an altitude of 1412ft and in 11.85. The first test sub-
scale altitude was limited by the airbrake at a 30 degree angle. The sub-scale vehicle was very stable during
launch. It went straight up with no observable instability. This is a good sign that our full scale airbrake will be
stable.
Recovery Subsystem
PARACHUTE SELECTION RATIONALE
The performance characteristics from three parachute geometries were compared to select the
optimal geometry for this years competition recovery system.
Parachute
Drag Coefficient
Iris Ultra
2.2
Descent Rate with

~31 lbs
12.41 ft./s
Size
120 in.
Packing distance
in 6in diameter
10 in.
Table 26: Parachute Selection Chart
The Iris Ultra 120 inch parachute was selected for the main parachute due to its greater efficiency
for the given application when compared to that of the other options. Its high drag coefficient of 2.2
allowed for low descent rate. This choice allows for low packing height, in a 6 inch tube, that this
parachute provided. Since this parachute will support entire weight of the descending launch
vehicle, a low descent rate was valued. With this type of parachute we have the option of selecting a
high power toroidal or a more compact toroidal depending on the development of the current vehicle design.
Both of these derivatives of the Iris Ultra still maintain a drag coefficient of 2.2. The bridal of this parachute is
one inch webbing with a swivel that can support 6000 lbs, with the option of a quarter inch Kevlar bridal. The
shroud lines are Nylon llla 400# Paraline and the overall parachute has a weight of 49oz.
Figure 135: Iris Ultra 120'' Parachute
Kinetic energy calculations that were done to ensure that the Iris Ultra would allow the launch
vehicle to land with a kinetic energy of less than 75 ft lbf.
RECOVERY FLIGHT PATH

At apogee, a 6.48 gram black powder charge located above the parachute bulkhead (see Figure 15
below) will eject the nosecone from the rest of the launch vehicle airframe. This will push the reefed
parachute out of the airframe, allowing it to act as a drogue. This is demonstrated in step 1 of Figure 16.
Figure 136: Black Powder Location
The main parachute will be ejected restrained by a plastic cable tie, which can be seen in step 2 of
Figure 16. This restrained main will function like a drogue parachute by destabilizing and slowing down
the descent of the launch vehicle. Simultaneously, the AirBrake system will open to its maximum
angle to further slow the descent of the vehicle. At 800 feet, a cable cutter will release the main
parachute, allowing it to open. At this point, the AirBrake system will retract its flaps so that they
are not damaged during the impact of landing, as seen in step 3 of Figure 16.
Figure 137: Recovery Sequence
Event
1
Altitude Segment
5280 ft.
Event Description
Apogee.
Nose cone ejection.
Entire launch vehicle under
restrained main parachute acting
as drogue.
5280 ft. 800 ft.
Main restrained with cable ties.

AirBrake at full flap deployment.
800 ft.
Main cable ties are cut allowing

main to open.
Airbrake flaps retract for landing
Table 27: Recovery Events and Descriptions
RECOVERY SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Shock Cable and Eyebolt
The parachute shock cable will be attached to a steel, nylon coated eyebolt, which can be seen
below in Figures 17 and 18. The eyebolt is rated for a vertical load capacity of 2600 lbs. This eyebolt will be
attached to a half inch thick G10 bulkhead and inch locking hex nut. The locking hex nut will prevent the risk
of the nut backing out during launch.
Figure 138: Steal eyebolt with bulkhead
Figure 139: Eyebolt data sheet
Parachute Cable Cutter
Figure 140: Archetype Rocketry Cable Cutter
The cable cutter takes a different perspective on a tether by shearing a plastic cable tie, which can be
used to hold a large number of recovery components. One of the most beneficial aspects of the cable cutter
is by providing the ability to use a single parachute as both the drogue and the main parachute. This cuts the
size of the overall launch vehicle by not having to use an airframe tube to house a drogue.
The cable cutter small size of approximately 1.8 inch length and 0.37 inch diameter allows it to be
placed anywhere in the parachute bay and allows two to be attached for redundancy .
Figure 141: Suggested Manufacturer Configuration
The cable cutter uses a black powder charge to fire a shearing pin towards the cable tie,
consequentially shearing it. This process will occur in the enclosed airframe area, and the pin is fired inward
so no damage can befall the user or the launch vehicle.
Figure 142: Redundant Cable Cutters
In case of an altimeter failure, a secondary altimeter and cable cutter combination will be available to
successfully fire and deploy the recovery equipment. Two cable cutters will be placed on the same cable tie.
This ensures that if one fails, the other can cut the cable.
ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC
Figure 143: Recovery System Electrical Schematic
SUB-SCALE TESTING
At our subscale test, we determined that the reefing system was a success, with deployment of the reefing
system slowing the rocket descent to 100 ft/s, and allowing for the successful deployment of the main chute
at 800 feet. Ground ejection tests determined that 2 grams of gunpowder allowed for a very energetic
ejection of the reefed parachute from the carbon reinforced phenolic tubing, and the subscale flight proved
the reliability of the reefing system in flight. Optical observation of the reefing system in flight determined
that snagging of the parachute on ejection lines causing a failure to unfurl is a minor concern.
After successful recovery of the subscale flight materials, it was determined that the reefing system left very
minimal wear and tear on the 1 Kevlar tubing which houses the 16 gauge solid wire used to carry the
ejection line from the upper bulkhead to the e-match. The integration of the electrical wires into the Kevlar
lines has also reduced the potential for tangling of the e-match leads with the recovery harness, leading to a
higher level of confidence that the parachute will successfully fully deploy.
The E-match was attached to the electrical lines that ran through the Kevlar tube by mechanical binding of
the wires, and then using electrical tape to isolate both wires from each other, and then tape them
backwards against the main electrical line to reduce strain on the mechanical twisted connection. For the full
scale bladed connectors will be crimped onto each of the e-matches and electrical lines to further reduce the
risk of line quality degradation as a result of strain.
The ideal gas law states that PV=NRT, with P= 15 psi, V=pi*(D/2)2 *L N=Gunpowder mass R=266in lbf/lbm,
which reduces to N=.006*D^2*L.
=
= ( ) 2 =
2
= 0.006 2
= 266
For the subcale, the main parachute section is 20 long, and the diameter of the rocket is 3, giving an
estimated gunpowder charge of 1.08 grams. 2 grams was selected based off of our ejection test, with 1.8
grams used as a starting point and black powder was added in increments of 0.5 grams until a proper
energetic ejection was observed. The main parachute for the fullscale rocket will fit into a 30 inch bay, and
has a 6 diameter tube, which should give an ejection charge of 6.48 grams. As it is known that larger rockets
often need less force than smaller rockets due to the much larger area for pressure to work upon, it is
expected that the 6.48 charge may be over energetic for the main deployment, and a smaller starting charge
of 5 grams will be used for the first round of ground ejection test.
RECOVERY SYSTEM VERIFICATION

Requirement Requirement
Number
The launch vehicle shall
2.1
stage the deployment of its
recovery devices, where a
drogue parachute is
deployed at apogee and a
main parachute is deployed
at a much lower altitude.
Tumble recovery or streamer
recovery from apogee to
main parachute deployment
is also permissible, provided
the kinetic energy during
drogue-stage descent is
reasonable, as deemed by
the Range Safety Officer.
Design Feature
Verification Method
The vehicle recovery has been

designed for a tumble recovery
at apogee and a main
deployment at 800 feet. The
tumble recovery will consist of
the nosecone being ejected off
the upper airframe, pulling the
main parachute out of the
parachute bay. At 800 feet, a
cable cutter will be used to
deploy the main parachute.
The recovery system will be

tested empirically both on
the subscale and final full
scale flight.
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
Teams must perform a

successful ground ejection
test for both the drogue and
main parachutes. This must
be done prior to the initial
subscale and full scale
launches.
At landing, each
independent section of the
launch vehicle shall have a
maximum kinetic energy of
75 ft-lbf.
The recovery system
electrical circuits shall be
completely independent of
any payload electrical
circuits.
The parachute electronics bay

will not be integrated into the
subscale and final, full scale
assembly until the recovery
system ejection has been tested
for functionality.
The team will perform

ejection tests before the
final vehicle assembly is
built to ensure the system
will deploy correctly.
The chosen parachute has a

coefficient of drag allowing the
rocket to slow down
sufficiently for a safe descent.
Hand calculations have been

done for landing kinetic
energy alongside
verification from Rocksim
simulation values.
The team will be aware of
the wiring of both the
payload and the electronics
bay in order to avoid
integrating the two.
The design of each subsystem

has been done so that the
payload electrical circuits are
not being integrated with the
flight computer electrical
circuits.
The recovery system shall
The launch vehicle recovery
contain redundant,
system has been designed to
commercially available
include two altimeters for
altimeters.
redundancy purposes.
Motor ejection is not a
There are no plans of ejecting
permissible form of primary the motor out of the launch
or secondary deployment.
vehicle, nor using it as means
An electronic form of
of primary or secondary
deployment must be used for deployment. The flight
deployment purposes.
computers will be used to send
out signals for parachute
deployment.
A dedicated arming switch
Both flight computers present
shall arm each altimeter,
in the launch vehicle will have
which is accessible from the independent arming switches
exterior of the rocket
accessible from the exterior of
airframe when the rocket is
the airframe.
in the launch configuration
on the launch pad.
Each altimeter shall have a
All three flight computers
dedicated power supply.
present in the electronics bay
are equipped with a 9 volt
battery power source.
Each arming switch shall be
capable of being locked in
the ON position for launch.
The arming switch for each

altimeter is being designed to
be turned on and off by using a
Both altimeters will be

tested before being
integrated into the vehicle.
The team will continue
developing the current
means of recovery, without
considering motor ejection
as a means of deployment.
The team will clearly mark

the arming switch for each
flight computer on the
exterior of the launch
vehicle airframe.
During manufacturing, the

team will make sure the
each flight computer is
wired correctly to its
respective 9 volt battery.
The team will integrate each
flight computer circuitry to
an independent arming
switch. Each individual key
2.10
2.11
2.12
Removable shear pins shall

be used for both the main
parachute compartment and
the drogue parachute
compartment.
An electronic tracking
device shall be installed in
the launch vehicle and shall
transmit the position of the
tethered vehicle or any
independent section to a
ground receiver.
The recovery system
electronics shall not be
adversely affected by any
other on-board electronic
devices during flight (from
launch until landing).
simple lock and key

mechanism.
will be dually marked for

ease of recognition.
A GPS unit will be placed in

both the electronics bay of the
main airframe and in the
tethered nosecone.
The team will make sure

both GPS units are
integrated securely in each
independent section
separate from any other
components.
The launch vehicle will be

designed so that each flight
computer will experience no
disruption to its individual
performance.
The team will be

conscientious of keeping the
electronics of the launch
vehicle safe from
disturbance.
Table 28: Recovery Verification
Mission Performance Predictions

MISSION PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The completion of a successful mission by this launch vehicle is determined by the achievement of all the
requirements put forth by this competition; as well as the teams consideration of the pertinent safety
requirements accompanying the launch of a high powered rocket of this class. In addition the requirements
laid out by the competition, the mission will be deemed completely successful if the launch vehicle performs
in accordance to all the supplemental requirements the team has placed on the launch vehicle For example,
successful deployment and retraction of the drag inducing flaps and successful use of the parachute cable
cutters are two systems that will be used to characterize whether the mission can be considered fully
successful. The following table outlines all major criteria the team will use to evaluate the success of the
launch vehicles mission.
Requirement
Number
Requirement
Statement
1.1
The vehicle shall

deliver the
payload to an
apogee altitude
of 5,280 feet
above ground
level.
Design
Satisfaction of
Requirement
The air braking
system will
deploy to induce
drag during the
ascent of the
launch vehicle to
adjust the apogee
height by
Verification of
Requirement
Success Criteria
Analysis of post
flight data from
the altimeters on
board the
launch vehicle
Apogee height should be

within 10% of the apogee
height required by the
competition.
1.2
1.3
1.4
The vehicle shall

carry one
commercially
available,
barometric
altimeter for
recording the
official altitude
used in the
competition
scoring.
The launch
vehicle shall be
designed to be
recoverable and
reusable.
Reusable is
defined as being
able to launch
again on the
same day without
repairs or
modifications.
The launch
vehicle shall have
a maximum of
four (4)
independent
sections.
comparing the
ideal flight profile
to the real time
flight profile.
The launch
vehicle will house
an Altus Metrum
TeleMega for use
in recording the
official altitude
used in
competition
scoring.
The airframe will

be reinforced
with carbon fiber
to increase the
amount of load it
can withstand. All
components
chosen during the
design phase will
be able to
withstand the
predicted loads.
The recovery
system has also
been designed to
allow for a launch
vehicle to
descend under
loads the vehicle
has been
simulated to
experience.
The design of the
launch vehicle
has been done
such that there
are only two
independent
section being
recovered.
Proper
installment and
wiring of the
flight computer
into the
electronics bay.
Test flights show successful

cataloging of data by flight
computers
The materials
and components
used during the
manufacturing
stages of the
launch vehicle
will be inspected
to ensure the
safety and
success of the
mission is met.
Components and materials

used should be free of any
damage and be able to
maintain their structural
integrity.
The launch
vehicle will be
manufactured
such that the
non
independent
sections of the
launch vehicle
will not separate
during the
ejection of the
recovery
parachute.
Ejection in flight occurs

successfully and launch
vehicle descends with the
nosecone tethered to the
main vehicle
1.5
The launch
vehicle shall be
limited to a single
stage.
The launch
vehicle has been
designed to
operate on one
solid, L class
motor.
1.6
The launch
vehicle shall be
capable of being
prepared for
flight at the
launch site within
2 hours, from
the time the
Federal Aviation
Administration
flight waiver
opens
The launch
vehicle shall be
capable of
remaining in
launch-ready
configuration at
the pad for a
minimum of 1
hour without
losing the
functionality of
any critical onboard
component.
The launch
vehicle shall use a
commercially
available solid
motor propulsion
The
straightforward
nature of the final
assembly of the
launch vehicle
allows for a quick
assembly, as well
a simple arming
of the on board
flight computers.
1.7
1.9
Ejection tests will

be conducted
before any test
launch of the
vehicle to make
sure all sections
remain intact.
The motor casing
will only allow
for one motor to
be placed in it.
During final
motor insertion,
proper
installation of a
single, solid
propulsion
motor.
All team
members
contributing to
the assembly of
the launch
vehicle will have
sufficient
knowledge to
efficiently
complete all pre
launch tasks.
Igniter is inserted correctly

and safely, allowing for
proper, subsequent motor
firing.
Successful vehicle launch

after having been prepared
for two hours or less.
The launch
vehicle flight
computers will be
powered by
batteries having a
life surpassing the
given time of one
hour of being
active on the
launch pad.
The flight
computers and
batteries will be
tested on the
ground before
the test.
Vehicle will launch

successfully on the date of
launch after having been
kept on the launch pad for
at least an hour.
The design of this

launch vehicle
has been done
such that the
motor mount will
be able to house
The team mentor

will be
responsible for
purchasing the
appropriate, NAR
approved motor.
Successful launch on the

chosen Cesaroni motor.
1.10
1.12
2.3
system using
ammonium
perchlorate
composite
propellant (APCP)
which is
approved and
certified by the
National
Association of
Rocketry (NAR),
Tripoli Rocketry
Association (TRA),
and/or the
Canadian
Association of
Rocketry (CAR).
The total impulse
provided by a
launch vehicle
shall not exceed
5,120 Newtonseconds (L-class).
All teams shall

successfully
launch and
recover a
subscale model of
their full-scale
rocket prior to
CDR.
At landing, each
independent
section of the
launch vehicle
shall have a
maximum kinetic
energy of
75 ft-lbf.
up to a four grain
Cesaroni motor,
which is a
commercially
available motor
certified by the
National
Association of
Rocketry.
The design of this

launch vehicle
uses an L class
motor with a
total impulse of
4263.1 N-s, well
below the
maximum
impulse allowed
by the rules of
this competition.
The team
launched a
subscale of the
full-scale rocket
prior to the
writing of this
report.
Simulations and
hand calculations
have been
performed
showing that no
independent
section will land
with a kinetic
energy more than
what the
competition
outlines.
The motor was

chosen in
accordance with
the competition
rules, with
careful checking
of all
requirements
The motor will be ignited

and fire according the
expectations given
simulation and previous
experience.
Data from this

launch has been
analyzed and will
be put into effect
when
manufacturing of
the full scale is
taking place.
Simulations will
be done in
accordance with
any potential
mass increase in
order to assure
this safety
requirement is
met.
The subscale launch is

considered a success
because all the critical
systems were validated and
tested.
Both independent sections

will land within the given
kinetic energy
requirements.
Table 29: Mission Success Criteria
SIMULATED MISSION FLIGHT ANALYSIS

Analyzing the mission by performing simulations before the launch of the vehicle allows for analyzation of
different criteria necessary to having completed a successful mission. This includes verifying requirements
such as projected apogee height, predicted kinetic energy at landing, stability margin analysis, drift distance
calculation, and other pertinent results that will be subsequently discussed in this report. Obtaining and
analyzing these results allows for ample time for changes to be made to the launch vehicle in the case that a
mass increase causes some of the criteria to be violated.
Flight Profile Simulations

The program Rocksim was used to generate the predicted flight profiles of the launch vehicle, as well as
provide data on projected maximum altitude given different launch day condition parameters. In addition to
apogee data, Rocksim was used to predict flight data such as velocity during different times of the vehicles
flight and overall launch vehicle stability. From the velocity data extrapolated from Rocksim, further analysis
could be made on the kinetic energy of the launch vehicle as it hits the ground, making sure it does not
exceed the maximum kinetic energy value of 75 ft-lb. The following graph and accompanying table analyzes
the data extrapolated from a flight simulation done under a 0 mph wind assumption.
Figure 144: 0 mph flight profile simulation
Apogee (ft.)
Main Parachute Deployment Altitude (ft.)
Drift Distance (ft.)
Time to Motor Burnout (s)
Time to Apogee (s)
Total Flight Time (s)
Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity at Main Deployment (ft/s)
5601.5
799.83
997.6
3.285
18.66
96.83
677.85
106.2
Landing Velocity (ft/s)

Landing Kinetic Energy (ft-lbf)
12.41
73.45
Table 30: 0 MPH Flight Data
All of the above values, save the landing kinetic energy, were taken from the final Rocksim simulation done
on the launch vehicle, which used the final values for the mass of each subsystem. After several simulations,
the team was able to achieve a safe maximum height within a ten percent margin of error from the maximum
allowable height provided by the handbook rules. The velocity at the deployment of the main parachute as
seen above is as expected for the initial tumble recovery descent before the main is deployed by the reefing
system.
In addition to the above simulations, others were conducted in order to have an idea of the drift distance in
relation to varying wind speeds. The flight profiles and pertinent data can be seen in the images and tables
below.
Figure 145: 5 MPH wind flight profile
Apogee (ft.)
Time to Apogee (s)
5358.3
1903.5
18.43
114.0
647.99
Table 31: 5 MPH flight data
Figure 146: 10 MPH Flight profile simulation
Apogee (ft.)
Time to Apogee (s)
5364.3
2145.2
18.44
132.2
646.31
Figure 147: 15 MPH flight profile
Apogee (ft.)
Time to Apogee (s)
5337.4
2365.1
18.39
131.7
645.44
Table 33: 15 MPH Flight data
Figure 148: 20 MPH Flight profile
Apogee (ft.)
Time to Apogee (s)
5284.2
6639.5
18.30
143.3
644.38
Figure 149: Actual Simulated Motor Thrust Curve
When this curve was compared to the motor thrust curve from the manufacturer, it was found that the
simulated thrust curve was accurate. Because of this, the team assumed that the data Rocksim has on file for
this given motor is accurate. The thrust curve provided by the manufacturer is shown in the image below.
Figure 150: Manufacturer Provided Motor Thrust Curve
DRAG ASSESSMENT
To calculate the average drag on the rocket, the equation for aerodynamic drag was used as follows:
1
= 2
2
In the equation above, the variables are defined as:
: Standard air density
Cd: Coefficient of drag
A: Reference area
V: Velocity
Using the coefficient of drag calculated through Rocksim, the projected launch vehicle area as seen from a
front side view, and the maximum velocity the vehicle will ever see; the approximate drag the vehicle alone
will see at a maximum velocity is 77.9 lbf.
STABILITY ANALYSIS
One of the primary criteria to a successful launch of this vehicle is making sure it meets a satisfactory margin
of stability. The Rocksim software calculates the center of pressure of the vehicle using the Barrowman
method, which is a method that uses equations that correspond to smaller angles of attack at subsonic
velocities. The center of gravity is calculated by taking the moment of each subassemblys centroid about a
set reference point. These values, are used to derive the stability margin, all of which are shown in the
following table:
Center of Gravity (in.) (from tip of nosecone)
Center of Pressure (in.) (from tip of nosecone)
Stability Margin
61.92
81.94
3.2511
Table 35: Stability Data
Figure 151: Rocksim Simulation
Launch Concerns and Operation Procedures

Recovery Preparation
Proper recovery preparation is crucial to ensuring the return of a functioning and reusable rocket.
The following checklist has been written to ensure that the recovery system is properly set up.
Failure to adhere to these steps could result in improper deployment of the recovery system.
Caution: E-matches and black powder are explosives. Special care must be taken to keep these
materials away from open flames and electrical sources.
Step
Description
Checkbox
1
Inspect the parachute canopy and rigging lines for any defects.
Properly fold the main parachute ensuring that the rigging lines will not become
tangled. Refer to the image below for proper parachute preparation and
packing.
Place the folded parachute inside of the nomex cloth. Neatly roll the cloth
around the parachute, taking care to fold the rigging lines while rolling.
Secure the parachute and the cable cutting tube utilizing a cable tie. Be sure to
run the cable through the holes on the sides of the cable cutter tube. Remove
excess material from the cable tie.
Prepare the e-match by running the wires through the hole in the hex head
screw ensuring the head of the e-match is protruding from the threaded end of
the screw.
Load the cable cutter cylinder into the cable cutter tube.
Load the cable cutter tube with a premeasured amount of black power.
Fasten the hex head screw to the cable cutter tube. Be sure to feed the e-match
to the through the screw so that it is in contact with the black powder.
Tie all chute rigging to the eye bolts with the water knot.
10
Assemble the flight computers and insert disarm switch into each computer.
11
Attach black powder charge to the terminal block.
12
Mount the airframe tubes together and install their respective removable pins.
13
Connect all separation points with shear pins, checking that the pins are flush
with the airframe using .1 mm feeler gauge.
Table 36: Recovery Preparation
Motor Preparation
The following checklist outlines the appropriate procedure for preparing and loading the rocket
motor. Due to the sensitive nature of the materials, all motor supplies will be handled and stored
by a certified team member in a dry place away from any open flame sources.
Step
Description
Checkbox
1
Check the motor casing for any defects, especially near the lower screw of the
casing.
Use a razor blade to carefully cut open the Cessaroni reload.
Using non-flammable silicone, lubricate the o-ring seal so that they may slide
easily into the casing, taking care to compress the o-rings. Be sure to watch for
snags or tears in the material.
Insert the reload into the motor casing checking that the nozzle will be flush with
the nozzle retainer.
Fasten the nozzle retainer.
Insert the assembled motor into the retainer on the rocket.
Fasten the motor retainer.
Table 37: Motor Preparation
Launchpad Preparation
An adequate launchpad is crucial for conducting a safe and successful launch. This checklist should
be completed with assistance from the safety range officer onsite.
Step
Description
Checkbox
1
Select an adequate location making certain that the surrounding area is absent
of any and all flammable materials.
Ready the rocket for inspection.
Transport the rocket out to the launch pad.
Check the launch rail for straightness.
Carefully slide the rocket onto the launch rail so as not to displace the linear rail
guides.
Arm all onboard electronics.
Perform a load test on the electronic bay batteries with a voltmeter. Each
battery must show a minimum voltage of 8V.
Manually attach the igniter leads to the launch controller.
Check for continuity. If continuity is present, inform the range safety officer that
the pad is hot.
10
Retreat to the designated launch area.
Table 38: Launchpad Preparation
Ignitor Installation
Ignitor installation is integrated into the automated AGSE process. Special attention still needs to
be given to confirm that ignitor insertion has been performed successfully.
Step
Description
Checkbox
1
Attach the ignitor to the AGSE. Be sure that the tip of the ignitor is facing
downward, away from the rocket.
Check for proper insertion of the ignitor. Confirm that the ignitor is fully inserted
into the motor and in contact with the motor. Look for any possible damage to the
motor gain.
Table 39: Ignitor Installation
Post Flight Inspection

A recovery team will be assembled prior to launch. The main task of the recovery team will be to
track the rocket during flight and ensure that all rocket components are safely returned to the
launch site. Finally, the recovery team will perform a post flight inspection which is detailed in this
checklist.
Step
Description
Checkbox
1
Recover all sections of the rocket. CAUTION: MOTOR CASING WILL BE

HOT!
Inspect the airframe for any damage from launch or landing impact.
Inspect the parachute and rigging lines for damage.
Bring the altimeter to a NASA official for altimeter reading verification.
After the motor casing has cooled, remove the motor and dispose the
contents of the motor responsibly.
Table 40: Post Flight Inspection
Safety and Environment

PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST
Procedure
The NAR/TRA mentor will check that the flight
computers are set to OFF before loading the
ejection charges.
The entire parachute loads will be inspected
prior to being loaded into the rocket, and all
flame proof materials will be checked for wear
and holes prior to loading.
The knots on all shock cords will be checked, as
well as the firmness of their fit onto the
airframe and associated components of the
airframe.
Metal to shock cord interfaces will be checked
for rust and smoothness to ensure that the cord
cannot be torn by the force of ejection.
The TRA mentor will then build and load the
rocket motor into the fully assembled rocket,
and will ensure that the igniter cannot have
voltage across its terminals by twisting the ends
of the igniter together.
The TRA mentor and the team will then fill out
a flight card for the rocket, stating its expected
altitude and the certified impulse of the motor.
The rocket will then be loaded onto the AGSE,
and upon completion of payload insertion, and
once the rocket has been lifted to a proper
launch angle, the ignitor will be inserted by the
AGSE into the rocket engine.
The TRA mentor will check the igniter for proper
insertion. If the Igniter is properly inserted, the
TRA mentor will complete wiring the igniter to
the launch control system present at the launch
site, and a team member will arm the flight
computers. Once the continuity beeps from the
flight computers are confirmed, the team will
move back to the minimum safe distance for the
launch.
Check if safely completed
Table 41: First Draft, Procedure Checklist
SAFETY PROCEDURES
NAR Model Rocket Safety Code
Every team member is required to have read and acknowledged the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code.
Pre Launch Briefings

Additional briefings on the high power rocketry code for Level 2 flights will occur prior to the launch
day as well as before any preceding tests flight. A short quiz about safe distances and the procedure for
launching a rocket safely will be given prior to travelling out to the launch site.
Team members will be given a basic instruction on the nature of launch sites, and will be actively
discouraged from engaging in cell phone texting and conversations while at the launch site, unless they are
far from the minimum safe distance required by NAR/TRA for the site.
All team members will be able to identify the potential hazards of assembling the launch vehicle for
launch and will remain focused and alert so that proper protocol is followed.
Caution statements will be issued with every plan of action for the construction of the launch vehicle
and AGSE. The safety officer will create a general Personal Protection Equipment guideline for team members
working on the rocket to consult before starting work each meeting. The safety procedure will be inserted
into every working document after the section that details the powered equipment, chemicals, or materials
to be used.
Rocket Motor Handling

The Chief Engineer will purchase the motor reloads from an online vendor or locally at a launch site,
and will store the reloads in a separate flame proof canister. The Chief Engineer will load the rocket motor in
accordance with TRA guidelines, and will be responsible for the rocket motor in its entirety.
Ignitors for the rocket motors will come packaged with the reloads, and the ejection charges will be
filled by the Chief Engineer with small amounts of black power, according to the engineers discretion on the
amount of force required to ensure separation. The amount will not exceed 5 grains of black powder. The
black powder will be stored in a separate flameproof canister from all of the other energetic ingredients, and
will have a desiccant loaded into the canister to aid in the removal and prevention of moisture
contamination.
Only team members that have achieved a level 2 certification or higher are allowed to acquire, store,
and manipulate the teams launch vehicle motors. By having obtained a Level 2 certification, the individual
has demonstrated that he or she understands the safety guidelines regarding motors. The motors shall be
stored in accordance with the regulations set forth by NFPA 1127. The motors for both test and competition
launches will be transported by car to the launch site.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
Risk Assessment Matrix
By researching and analyzing each human interaction with the environment and launch vehicle
system, and by reflecting upon past launching experience, hazards have been identified and will continue to
be brought to the teams attention. Each hazard has been assigned a risk level by evaluating the severity of
the hazard and the probability that the hazard will occur using the risk assessment matrix, found in Error!
Reference source not found. X below. This type of hazard analysis will continue to be done and updated as
the project moves forward and more potential hazards are brought to the teams attention.
A severity value between 1 and 5 has been assigned to each hazard, with a value of 1 being the least
severe. In order to determine the severity of each hazard, the outcome of the mishap was compared to an
established set of criteria based on the severity of personal injury, environmental impact, and damage to the
rocket, equipment, or personal property.
A probability value between 1 and 5 has been assigned to each hazard as well, with a value of 1
being least likely to occur. The probability value was determined for each hazard based on an estimated
percentage chance that the mishap will occur given the following:
All personnel involved have undergone proper training on the equipment being used or
processes being performed.
All personnel have read and acknowledged that they have a clear understanding of all
rules and regulations set forth by the latest version of the safety manual.
Personal protective equipment is used as indicated by the safety lab manual and the
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
All procedures and safety precautions were correctly followed during construction of the
launch vehicle, testing, pre-launch preparations, and the launch.
All components were thoroughly inspected for damage or fatigue prior to any test or
launch.
In addition to the overall risk assessment matrix provided above, initial risk assessments have been
made for various possible hazards that have been identified at this stage in the project.
Severity Value (SV)
1-4 = Low Risk

4-8= Medium Risk
10-25 = High
Risk
Likelihood
Value (LV)
1-Insignificant
2-Minor
3-Moderate
4-Major
5- Catastrophic
Could result in:

Insignificant
injuries, damage to
property, or
environmental
effects
Monetary Loss <
$100
Could result in:

Insignificant
injuries or
environmental
effects,
Partial failure of
non-critical system
Monetary Loss >
$100
Could result in:

Minor injuries
Moderate
environmental
effects
Failure of noncritical systems
Monetary Loss >
$500
Could result in:

Severe injuries
Reversible
environmental
effects or
Partial mission
failure
Monetary Loss >
$1,000
Could result in:

Death
Significant
environmental
damage or
Complete mission
failure
Monetary Loss >
$5,000
10
12
15
12
16
20
10
15
20
25
1-Very Unlikely
< 1% chance it will
happen
2-Unlikey
between 1% and
15% chance
3-Moderate
between 15% and
50% chance
4-Likely
between 50% and
90% chance
5-Very Likely
> 90% chance it
will happen
Table 42: Risk Assessment Matrix
Acknowledging the hazards now brings attention to these particular
failure mechanisms that need to be improved upon. The team can take into account these possible failures as
the design continues to evolve and will work to diminish these hazards and to identify other possible hazards
throughout the design and building phases. The risk assessment charts that follow serve to highlight areas
that the team will need focus on moving forward with the project. The identified hazards can be found
below.
Lab and Machine Shop Risk Assessment

There are risks associated with working with machinery, tools, and chemicals that the team will need
to be aware of when manufacturing the launch vehicle. The following table addresses these hazards. The
manufacturing of parts for the launch vehicle and ground support equipment will be performed mainly on
the university campus.
Hazard
Cause
Outcome
SV
LV
Risk
Mitigation
Using power
tools such as
drills and saws
Improper
training or
carelessness
when using
tools
Minor to severe
injuries such as
cuts or burns
Damage to
component
being worked on
or equipment
4
Low
risk
Working with
chemical
components
Chemical
Fumes or
splash
Minor burns or
injuries due to
skin contact or
inhalation of
chemicals
3
Low
Risk
Safety gear appropriate

for each tools must be
worn when using it
Safety glasses must be
worn at all times when in
the machine shop
No untrained team
member may use power
tools unless supervised by
a trained individual
No team member will
work alone in the machine
shop
Chemical containers will
be marked with safety
precautions specification
MSDS documentation will
be available and reviewed
before use pf chemical
component
Appropriate protective
gear will be worn when
working with chemicals
Work shall be completed
in a well ventilated area
Table 43: Lab/Machine Shop Risk Assessment
AGSE Functionality Risk Assessment

The hazards outlined in the table which follows are the risks linked to all components comprising the
AGSE; including launch pad functionality, rocket erector, and ignitor installation. Due to the high importance
of a stable launch assembly, the system will be rigorously tested prior to any launches.
Hazard
Unstable/
Un-level
Launch
Platform
Cause
Poor
Construction
Unstable
ground
Rocket gets
caught on
launch rail
Misalignment
of launch
tower joints
High friction on
launch rail
Outcome
May cause an
unpredictable
rocket trajectory
May impede
rocket launch
Launch Tower
could tip over
during launch
Rocket may not
achieve a sufficient
velocity before
exiting launch rail,
may be damaged
on exit
SV
2
LV
2
Risk
4
Low Risk
Mitigation
Extensive testing for
stability will be done on
the AGSE before use
Ensure that everyone is a
safe distance from
Launchpad established by
NAR rules
6
Medium
Risk
Launch tower will be

inspected during set up
(included in launch
checklist)
Testing and analysis will
be performed during
Sharp Edges
on
components
Manufacturing
stage
Minor cuts when

making, or
transporting
rocket
Small bush fire
3
Low Risk
Rocket
Launch
causes a
Brush Fire
Dry Launching
conditions
2
Low Risk
Arms Buckle
under load
of rocket
Material
Failure,
May cause rocket

to jam upon exit
Launch Platform
may not reach
required position
AGSE will not
reach desired
launch angle
Time requirement
for this portion of
the competition
will not be met
Rocket will not
erect and may fall
back down to
horizontal position
3
Low Risk
Components
Jam
Material
Failure
8
Medium
Risk
6
Medium
Risk
Vehicle is
not lifted at
fast enough
rate
Motor
Failure
Poor motor
choice
8
Medium
Risk
Power Loss
Electrical
failure
Faulty batteries
AGSE will not

function
4
Low Risk
Igniter not
properly
installed in
motor
Design or set
up failure in
igniter injector
Possible damage
to rocket motor
during ignition
Loss of vehicle
15
High
Risk
Motor
breaking/Short
building phase to make

sure this will not be an
issue
Sharp edges will be,
smoothened, and deburred
Have equipment to
extinguish fire in hand and
ready to use
Wait until safety range
officer determines is safe
to extinguish fire
Analysis and testing will be
performed on
configuration of
components to ensure this
will not happen
All components will be
checked prior to launch
Test runs of the entire
AGSE will be performed to
ensure time limit is met
This will be taken into
account when developing
the AGSE further
Redundancy measure will
be implemented
Extra batteries will be
brought to launch
Batteries will be tested
prior to launch
Redundancy measures will
be implemented
Additional mechanism for
verification will be
installed
Verification of proper set
up of this part of the AGSE
will be done by multiple
team members
Table 44: AGSE Risk Assessment Matrix
Stability and Propulsion Risk Assessment

The hazards associated with the stability and propulsion of the launch vehicle are outlined the table
that follows. The team has multiple members with certifications supporting that the launch vehicle motors
can be safely handled. In addition, key team members also have previous high powered rocketry
experience, allowing for a safe and stable launch vehicle. This area is considered a low risk for the team, but it
is still important to address any potential problems that the team may face throughout the project.
Hazard
Motor Fails
to Ignite
Cause
Faulty motor
Problems with
igniter injector
system
Delayed
ignition
Faulty or
disconnected
e-match
Outcome
Rocket does not
launch or launches
at an unpredicted
time
SV
3
LV
2
Risk
6
Medium
Risk
Mitigation
Follow NAR safety code
Wait appropriate amount
of time (60 seconds)
before approaching to
check ignition system
Be prepared to remove
the ignition system from
the rocket motor
Motor
Explodes on
Launch Pad
Faulty motor
Significant damage
to the rocket
4
Low Risk
Rocket does
not reach
sufficient
velocity
before
leaving
launch rail
Fins shear
during flight
Rocket weight
to impulse
ratio is not
correct
Unstable launch
and unpredictable
flight trajectory
3
Low Risk
All personal should be at a

safe distance allowed by
NAR guidelines
Be prepared to extinguish
possible fires caused by
this incident
Simulations on Rocksim
are run to ensure correct
motor selection
Poorly
constructed
rocket
Not enough
epoxy used to
secure fins to
the frame
Airframe
encounters
stresses over
materials
specifications
Fin are
mounted
incorrectly, not
straight or
unequally
spaced
One of the
flaps may
break
Unstable rocket,
Unpredictable
flight path
4
Low Risk
Examine rocket fins for

any issues prior to launch
Confirm that all personnel
are at a safe distance
during launch
Loss of rocket
Rocket becomes
severely unstable
4
Low Risk
Adequate material
selection that can sustain
stresses much higher than
required
Rocket severely
unstable, may spin
excessively during
flight
4
Low Risk
Fins will be installed with

adequate tolerances so
they do not negatively
affect flight trajectory
Severely
destabilizes rocket
12
High
Risk
Testing and analyses will

be performed to
determine maximum
Airframe
buckles
during flight
Improperly
aligned fins
Air brake
system
causes
instability
stresses caused on the

flaps
Fins tolerances will be
designed to withstand
much higher stresses than
necessary
High risk due to fact that
this concept hasnt been
tested.
Table 45: Stability/ Propulsion Risk Assessment
Launch Day Risk Assessment

The following table outlines risks that might potentially be encountered during launch preparations
during either the competition day, or any test launched the team plans to conduct.
Hazard
Dropping Rocket
during
transportation
Cause
Carelessness
when handling
rocket
Outcome
Minimal damage
(scratched) to
components of
rocket
SV
1
LV
2
Risk
2
Low risk
Black Powder
causes charges to
go off early
Altimeter
failure sends
an incorrect
reading
4
Low Risk
Parachute failure
during decent
Parachute does
not deploy
Altimeter
failure
Not enough
pressurization
Wrongly sized
parachute
Parachute gets
stuck and cant
deploy
Could cause
serious injuries
and significant
damage to the
rocket
Rocket reaches
ground with too
great kinetic
energy causing
damage to
rocket
components or
dangerous
situation to
personnel.
Rocket may fall
too slowly
causing it to
drift great
distances
5
Medium
Risk
Mitigation
Rocket is designed to be
durable due to the
nature of launching it,
however careful
handling should be
practiced and will be
enforced during the
prelaunch safety
briefing
All electronics will be
kept OFF during
preparation until last
possible moment.
Simulations have been
completed to confirm
that parachutes have
been properly selected
Ground test will be
perform ion the
parachute ejection
system and on the
parachute itself to verify
that each is working
properly
Table 46: Launch Day Risk Assessment
Environmental Hazards Risk Assessment

The hazards addressed in the table which follows are risks from the environment that could affect
the launch vehicle, or any of its components. Several of these hazards resulted in a moderate risk level, and
will remain that way for the remainder of the season. These hazards are the exception for needing to achieve
a low risk level. This is because several of these hazards are out of the teams control, such as the weather. In
the case that environmental hazards present themselves on launch day, putting the team at a moderate risk,
the launch will be delayed until a low risk level can be achieved. The hazards that the team can control will be
mitigated to attain a low risk level.
Hazard
Weather
conditions
such as rain
or high
winds
Cause
Nature
Outcome
Damage to
electrical
components
Increased Drifting
Launch may be
cancelled
SV
3
LV
4
Risk
12
High Risk
Trees/
Ponds/
Swamps
Launch site
proximity to
trees
Rocket may land

wrongly causing it
to get tangled or
damaged
3
Low Risk
Extremely
Cold Temp.
Messes with
the batteries
causing them
to discharge
more quickly
Can cause
fiberglass to
shrink
Climate
Discharged
batteries might
cause failure of
AGSE or electrical
problems causing
failure in setting up
black powder
charges
Black Powder
becomes moist and
fails to ignite
3
Low Risk
8
Medium
Risk
Humidity
Mitigation
Weather forecast will be
checked prior to launch
and plans will be made
accordingly
Design a way to protect
electrical components
from rain
Avoid launching at high
winds when possible
Not to launch with high
winds that may cause
the rocket to drift too
much. Simulations have
been completed on
Rocksim with different
wind velocities use this
information to
determine if rocket is
safe to launch
Batteries will be
inspected prior to
launch. Extra batteries
will be purchased and
brought to the launch to
use if necessary
Motors will be stored

correctly in a moisture
free environment
Table 47: Environmental Effects Risk Assessment
DESIGN FAILURE MODES

Although several failure modes were discussed in the preceding sections, the table shown below
discusses them in more detail. There are areas that the team must pay take into closer consideration when
continuing to develop the design in order to minimize their effect on the launch vehicle.
Potential Failure Mode

Parachute Failure
Launch Failure
Cause
Parachute burns due to
ejection charge
Consequence
Improper installation of
Kevlar blanket
Parachute detaches
from shock chord
Vehicle has uncontrolled

descent leading to
catastrophic failure
Igniter fails to ignite
Motor will not combust;

rocket will not launch
Rocket will not launch;
Catastrophic damage to
vehicle and AGSE
Signals are not sent to
ejection charges;
uncontrolled descent of
vehicle
Ejection charges do not
activate; uncontrolled
descent of vehicle
Motor explodes
Altimeter Failure
Leads break free
Altimeter runs out of

battery power
External Structural
Failure
Internal Structural
Failure
Ejection Charge Failure
Mitigation
Ensure blanket
completely wraps
around parachute
Securely tie the
parachutes to the shock
chords; multiple people
will check know strength
Ensure continuity;
Properly store igniters
Proper storage of motor
Install thicker gauge

wire
Put a new battery in

each altimeter before
each launch; ensure
they are fully charged
Proper installation,
alignment, and location
of rail buttons.
Use proper materials
and construction
techniques for fins.
Rail button separates

while on launch rail.
Rocket has an
undesirable trajectory.
Fins break during flight

due to drag force.
Rocket is unstable
during flight
Upper electronics bay

hatch detaches in flight.
Damage to electronics.
Rocket has unstable
flight.
Construction of the
electronics bay hatch
will ensure a smooth
contour and will be
firmly attached.
Internal components
shift during initial thrust.
Rockets center of
gravity shifts, resulting
in an unstable flight.
Apply enough epoxy to

secure internal
components.
Couplers fail from being

too short.
Body tube connections

are weak. Rocket breaks
apart during liftoff.
Motor Mount fails
Motor flies through the

rocket and damages
components. Rocket
flight is unstable.
Pressure increase is not
sufficient to eject
airframe components.
Ensure couplers are at

least one tube diameter
in length to hold the
rocket together.
Make the forward
motor mount bulkhead
thick enough
Ejection charges fail to

ignite
Ground ejection test
Ejection charge too

large
Separation Failure
Premature separation of
rocket components
Uncontrolled descent of
vehicle.
Potential damage to
internal and external
components of vehicle
Damage to rocket due to
unforeseen forces acting
on the vehicle
Ground ejection test
Ensure connections are

strong and do not easily
shift around
Table 48: Failure Mode Analysis
EVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
As the vehicle moves closer to its operational phase, there are still two main environmental concerns that are
being assessed and prepared for should either of them occur come the day of launch. First, there is a
possibility that harmful substances could be released and permeate into the surrounding ground or water
upon the launch of the rocket. A cause of this occurring post-launch would be a result of the chemicals or
batteries from the vehicle being disposed of in an incorrect manner. An aftereffect of an accident of this
nature happening is damage to neighboring environments through the introduction of chemicals and other
hazardous materials into the area. As shown on the Risk Assessment Matrix, there is between a 17% and
50% chance that this effect could occur. If harmful substances are released, there is also a minor chance that
the contaminants could cause partial failure of the rockets non-critical system. To remedy the situation if a
spill occurs after the launch of the vehicle, it will be taken care of in as stated in MSDSs specifications.
Preventative measures will be taken to minimize the possibility of these potentially toxic substances being
released into the surrounding areas. After the rockets launch for the competition, the batteries will be
disposed of in accordance to MSDS guidelines.
A second environmental hazard that might occur is the release of toxic fumes from the rocket into the air.
Deadly fumes would be released from the vehicle as a result of burning the ammonium perchlorate motors.
According to the Risk Assessment Matrix this is unavoidable, but the results of the gases being released will
be insignificant in comparison to other hazards to the environment. Overall, it carries a moderate risk factor
for environmental damages. To limit the impact, the ammonium perchlorate motors will be burned as
infrequently as possible to prevent and limit the release of toxic gases. The motors will also be burned using
on small quantities of ammonium perchlorate to decrease the risk as well.
Aside from the vehicle having hazardous effects on the environment, it is also possible for the environment
to impact the rocket on launch day too. Inclement weather conditions, such as strong rain or high winds can
have damaging effects on the rocket. Rain can cause significant damage to the electrical components. High
winds can cause increased drifting during both launch and landing. Should high winds be predicted in the
weather forecast for the day of the launch and the conditions still be deemed acceptable to launch in, the
time that the rocket will be launched will be the time that has the lowest winds to prevent injury and or
damage to the vehicle. If either of these conditions becomes too intense, the launch can be scrubbed and
postponed until more promising conditions occur. There is a high risk that weather will become a factor in
determining if the vehicle is go for launch on the day of the competition (between 50% and 90% chance in
accordance to the Risk Assessment Matrix). To decrease the chance of having to cancel the launch, the
weather forecast will be checked prior to the scheduled launch and plans to proceed will be made
accordingly. Should rain be predicted in the weather forecast for the day of the launch, but not inclement
enough to scrub the launch, the electrical components will be protected from the rain in order to prevent
damage.
Due to the location of the launch site, there is a close proximity to trees, ponds, and swamps that can
possibly inflict damages on the vehicle. If the rocket lands in a tree filled area, the parachute cords stand a
chance of becoming tangled and damaged. Other rocket components could also be damaged and be deemed
unrecoverable depending on the landing site of the vehicle. However, the risk of an accident occurring with
the entanglement of parachute cords within a tree is low risk with a less than 18% chance that this may
happen the launch day (see Risk Assessment Matrix, SV 3/ LV 1). A preventative solution to this is to not
launch the rocket with any high winds as they may cause the rocket to drift too much off-course. Simulations
have also been demonstrated using Rocksim to model different wind velocities to determine in what
conditions the rocket will be sate to launch in.
Another environmental hazard that could challenge the vehicles launch is an extremely cold temperature.
While the likelihood that this will happen is very unlikely because of the location of the launch, it is still a
factor that could affect the targeted launch date. Both very high or incredibly low temperatures can cause
moderate damages to the vehicle (as seen in the Risk Assessment Matrix). Extreme temperatures can
interfere with the batteries in the rocket causing them to discharge more quickly than desired. When the
batteries inside the rocket discharge too quickly, it can cause the fiberglass that the vehicle is constructed
from to shrink which can have negative impacts on the rest of the components inside the rocket itself.
Another result of a battery that fires too rapidly is that it could cause the failure of AGSE and could also result
in the failure of other electrical systems. To prevent this from occurring, all batteries will be inspected prior
to the launch of the rocket. The team will also purchase extra batteries and bring them to the launch site in
case of any problems that may arise on the day of the competition.
Since the location of the launch is in the southern part of the United States, another environmental concern
is humidity. If it is humid on the day of the launch, the black powder within the rocket could become too
moist and fail to ignite. It is high likely that the humidity level will have some impact of the black powder
inside the rocket, but should any damage occur, it would be very minor and could result in the failure of noncritical systems. The overall risk factor for the likelihood and severity of this event is a medium risk. To
reduce the likelihood of this happening, the motors will be stored in a moisture free environment prior to the
competition.
HAZARD
CAUSE
OUTCOME
SV
LV
RISK
MITIGATION
Harmful
substances
released into
the surrounding
ground or
water
Release of toxic
fumes into the
air
Incorrectly
disposing of
used batteries
or chemicals.
Negative effects
into the
environment.
4
Low risk
Batteries will be disposed of in the right manner

according to MSDS specifications Should spills
occur proper measure are to be followed
according to MSDS sheets
Moderate
Risk
Ammonium perchlorate will be burned in small

quantities and as infrequently as possible
Pollution
Burning of
ammonium
perchlorate
motors
HAZARD
Weather
conditions
such as rain
or high winds
CAUSE
Nature
Trees
Ponds
Swamps
Launch
site
proximity
to trees
Extremely
cold
temperatures
Interferes
with the
batteries
causing
them to
discharge
more
quickly
than
desired
which can
cause the
fiberglass
to shrink
Climate
Humidity
Biodegradation
OUTCOME
Damage to
electrical
components
-Increased drifting
-Launch may be
cancelled
Rocket land in a
tree filled area
causing it to get
tangled or
damaged
Discharged
batteries might
cause failure of
AGSE or electrical
problems causing
failure in setting
up black powder
charges
SV
3
LV
4
RISK
12 HIGH
RISK
MITIGATION
Weather forecast will be checked prior to launch and
plans will be made accordingly.
-Design a way to protect electrical components from
the rain.
-Avoid launching at high wind speeds when possible.
3 LOW
RISK
3 LOW
RISK
-Not to launch with high winds that may cause the

rocket to drift course too much.
-Simulations have been completed with Rocksim with
different wind velocities using this information to
determine if the rocket will be safe to launch.
Batteries will be inspected prior to launch.
-Extra batteries will be purchased and brought to the
launch for use if necessary.
Black powder
becomes moist
and fails to ignite
8 MEDIUM
RISK
Motors will be stored correctly in a moisture free

environment.
Table 49: Environmental Concerns with respect to the launch vehicle
Likelihood
Value (LV)
1-4= LOW RISK
4-8=MEDIUM
RISK
10-25=HIGH
RISK
1-Insignificant
SV
Could result in:
Insignificant
injuries,
damage to
property, or
environment
effects
-Monetary Loss
< $100
3-Moderate
SV
Could result in:
Minor injuries
-Moderate
environmental
effects
-failure of noncritical systems
-Monetary Loss
> $500
4-Major
SV
Could result in:
-Severe injuries
-Reversible
environmental
effects
-Partial mission
failure
-Monetary loss
> $1000
5-Catastrophic
SV
Could result in:
-Death
-Significant
environmental damage
-Complete mission failure
-Monetary loss > $5,000
2-Minor
SV
Could result in:
Insignificant
injuries or
environmental
effects.
-Partial failure
of non-critical
system
-Monetary loss
>$100
2
1-Very unlikely
<18% chance it
will happen
2-Unlikely
Between 17%
and 50%
chance
3-Moderate
Between 15%
and 50%
4-Likely
Between 50%
and 90%
chance
10
12
15
12
16
20
Table 50: Risk Assessment Matrix
SECTION 4: PAYLOAD CRITERIA

Mission Success Criteria
1. Provide a location for the payload cache to be stored by the AGSE.
2. Communicate with AGSE to proceed with launch procedures.
3. Provide safety and stability of payload cache during take-off, flight, and landing.
The payload bay will be accessible to the AGSE by separation of the nosecone using a rack and pinion system.
The system utilizes a series of 4, , thin plywood bulkhead discs that provide rigidity to the nosecone shell
and operation of retractable separating halves. A housing for the electronics operating the rack and pinion
system will be 3-D printed out of ABS plastic. The encasing will be JB welded to a inch thin plywood
bulkhead disc which is also mounted to the lower portion of the nosecone via JB weld. A balsa wood plate is
mounted on top of the housing using four inch counter bore socket head screws. Two, inch thick
retention clips 3-D printed from ABS and mounted above the balsa wood plate provide secure holding for the
payload cache during flight.
The two most upper thin plywood bulkhead discs will be JB welded to the inside of the nose cone.
They are attached to each other and a third bulkhead disc through threaded rods and held in place by a
washer and nut. The third bulkhead disc is attached by screws and a mounting plate to the rack, which will
provide the closing motion of the system once the payload cache is successfully received. This disc also holds
the threaded mounting stud for the locking mechanism. The nosecone separation will then be locked once
the mounting stud enters the latch body of the QUIK Latch thats threaded into the lower bulkhead disc. The
latch boasts a pulling force of 150 pounds, which is much less than what will be exhibited on this lower stress
zone providing a high quality lock for this system. The fastener also has a recessed push release button that is
on the side of the bulkhead disc within the nosecone shoulder which will allow the system to be re-separated
once recovered.
After the system has completed its closing and locking process a 433 MHz RF transmitter will signal
the AGSE of its completion allowing it to move onto its next step in the launch process. The RF transmitter
and a battery will be mounted between the second and third bulkhead disc on a rectangular plywood base
board attached to the threaded rods.
Payload Bay Components

Main Components
1 Rack Assembly
2 Servo Motor
3 Retention Clip
4 Battery Pack
5 Locking Mechanism
6 Wiring Door
7 Micro Maestro 6-Channel USB
8 Assembly Component Housing
9 Threaded Rods
10 RF Transmitter
11 Energizer 522 9V battery
12 Breadboard
Description
32 Pitch 6.54 in. Delrin Rack and Aluminum Beam
133 Oz-in Continuous Rotation Motor and 32 Pitch Gear
ABS Plastic
6V 1600mah NiMH Battery
QUIK Latch mini
Balsa Wood
Highly Compact Servo Controller
ABS Plastic
Connection between bulkhead discs
Provides signal to AGSE that payload retrieval is complete.
RF transmitter power supply.
Circuit board for RF transmitter.
Table 51: Payload Bay Components
All Assembly Components
Weight (oz)
.75 in L x 1/4-20 Socket Head Cap Screw (4 pk)

1/4-20 Nylock Nuts (4 pack)
0.2
0.2
Metal Bracket
Micro Maestro 6-channel USB Servo Controller
HS-645MG Servo
6.0V 1600mah NiMH Battery (Flat)
.25 in L #6 Truss Head Phillip Screws(4 pk)
24T, 32 Pitch Metal Servo Gear (Hitec)
.875 in L x 6-32 Zinc-Plated Alloy Steel Socket Head
Cap Screw (25 pk)
0.106
1.94
4.4
0.4
1
0.2
1/4" -20 Threaded Rod

Rf Transmitter and Receiver
Quik Latch mini
0.213
1.42
1
0.45
1.6
0.5
0.14
9.6
2.672
16
0.1
0.031
24
38.72
11.04
Aluminum Beam
32P Gear Rack
Energizer 6v 522 Battery
Bread Board
Retention Clips (2)
Bulkhead Discs (6)
Threaded Rods
Payload
Transmittor Plyboard
Wiring Door
Component Housing
Nose Cone Frame
Eyebolt
115.932
Total Weight
Table 52: Complete Component List
RACK AND PINION ASSEMBLY

A 32 pitch rack made of Delrin was chosen due to its light weight and durable characteristics. The rack is
attached by a .75 long -20 socket head cap screw with a Nylock nut to an aluminum beam to provide
more support for the upper portion of the nose cone as is moves out of the channel within the assembly
housing. The Nylock nut also aids in dampening the effect of vibrations the assembly might see during takeoff and flight, which may cause a regular nut to loosen.
Figure 152: Rack and Pinion Assembly
The screw and bolt also holds steel two right angle brackets that are mounted to the third bulkhead disc
which allow movement of the entire upper portion of the nose cone on the launch rail upon interaction with
the AGSE.
The HS-645MG Ultra Torque servo with continuous rotation was chosen according to the amount of force
required to displace the upper portion of the nose cone 5 inches in order for the AGSE to gain access to the
retention clips where the payload cache will be held. This particular type of motor provides the most efficient
capabilities over gear motors and stepper motors according to the application it is needed for. It is
lightweight, 1.94 oz., in comparison to gear motors, and provides continuous rotation with precision position
control from the potentiometer, whereas stepper motors have a tendency to lose position due to the
magnetic field used to drive it. The figure below provides further characteristics.
Figure 153: HS-645MG Servo Characteristics
PAYLOAD BAY ELECTRONICS

The HS-645MG servo will be controlled by the Micro Maestro 6-channel USB servo controller. The controller
is small yet capable enough of providing the necessary duties without adding additional weight or volume
within the assembly. The USB program interface allows the team to setup position control and frame timing
for the servo which is stored on the onboard memory when disconnected from the computer. It will also
allow the team to generate an RF transmitter signal script to be used once the payload cache retrieval is
complete.
Other controllers common controllers such as an Arduino UNO were considered but proved to be
too big for the compact space provided. The high-resolution pulse range, 64-3280 microseconds, makes it
perfect for a high performance application and reliability. The figure below provides more specifications on
the microcontroller.
Figure 154: Microcontroller Information
Both the microcontroller and servo will be powered by a 6V 1600mah NiMH rechargeable power supply. This
is a very high capacity battery pack in a small size providing better efficiency than NiCAD batteries. LiFe and
LiPo batteries were considered but were not as cost effective as the currently chosen pack providing the
necessary power for the equipment being used.
The RF Transmitter and receiver operate at 433MHz and will be powered by a 9v Energizer battery,
which can be also used for redundancy in case of the battery back failure.
Material
PCB and aluminum alloy
Weight and
Size
Weight: 6g
Size(L x W x H): 2.0 x 2.0 x 1.5
cm / 0.79 x 0.79 x 0.59 inches
Receiver Data
Output
High - 1/2 Vcc,

Low - 0.7v
Transmitter
Input Voltage
3-12V (high voltage = more

transmitting power)
Table 53: RF transmitter specifications

Figure 155: RF Transmitter
RETENTION CLIPS AND LOCKING MECHANISM

In order to securely transport the payload throughout flight in the launch vehicle, retention clips made of ABS
plastic were an optimal solution. Once the nose cone is in the open position the payload can then be placed
between the clips providing a snug compression fit to reduce and sloshing or bouncing. The clips not only can
be manufactured and tested in house, but can be optimized according to the test data.
Figure 156: Payload Retention Clips
The clips not only provide great stability for the payload but are also very light weight. The angled ends of the
clips provide guidance as the cache is brought closer into the center of the clip. The clips will be 3D printed in
ABS plastic due to its flexibility as compared to commonly used PLA plastic.
The locking mechanism that is being utilizing in place of the compression spring and pin is the QUIK Latch
fastener. This mechanism will allow for 150lbs of pulling force and also give accessibility to re-open the
payload bay after recovery with a push release button. Referencing the Mission performance segment the
nose cone assembly will see an approximate drag force of 78 lbsf , which is about half of the rated force value
of the mechanism. The mounting stud is threaded to the bulkhead disc that is attached to the rack in order to
clear the way for the payload cache once the system is open. At the end of the stud is a spherical nub that
locks into the latch body which is mounted onto the lower bulkhead disc. The following figure depicts the
QUIK Latch system.
Figure 157: Latch System
PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY HOUSING

The assembly housing for the payload is an integral component to allow this system to perform properly. The
following figures provide insight into the detail of the design.
Figure 158: Payload Assembly Housing Isometric Views
Figure 159: Payload Assembly Housing with components loaded
As can be seen from above the housing will be unique to the design and 3D printed out of ABS plastic. Each
component has its own location within the housing to be mounted with - 20 socket head cap screws. The
rack and beam have a channel that it will move within in order to prevent it from dislodging and contacting
other components within the housing. The battery pack has a small hole next to its placement for the wiring
to enter through, while there is also a hole for the wiring of the servo and as well. A small plywood wood
door will block off the excess wiring from both components and provide a common hole for them to enter
through and attach to the microcontroller. This solves the problem for excess wiring or requirement of a
harness.
CHANGES SINCE PDR

1.
2.
3.
4.
Move payload bay into nose cone.

Replace spring and pin system with QUIK Latch locking mechanism.
Add supporting bulkhead discs and change material used.
Add RF transmitter with power source.
REASON FOR CHANGES

The changes that have taken place since PDR have been done for specific reasons in order to benefit
the overall configuration of the launch vehicle. The payload bay was moved into the nose cone in order to
reduce the overall length of the launch vehicle and utilize the empty space as well. The spring and pin system
was replaced due to the lack of security in knowing that it will maintain the amount of force it needed to
withstand as well as for complications in it becoming lodged incorrectly within the housing. Instead a much
more reliable and tested locking mechanism was chosen in order to ensure safety of the payload cache and
all electronics. All the bulkhead discs have been changed from balsa wood to thin plywood in order to
provide more rigidity and strength for attachments. The RF transmitter was deemed of optimal importance in
its addition in order to complete the launching process in a pronounced sequential fashion for the AGSE.
Design Constraints and Challenges
Provide a location for payload cache containment
without compromising structural integrity of the
airframe or cache itself.
Design a system for autonomous cache retrieval.
Communicate with AGSE once payload retrieval

process is complete.
Securely transport payload cache throughout

flight.
Solution
Moving the containment bay to the nose cone
reduces any ability to cause structural damage or
changes to the airframe.
The separation of the nosecone through a servo
controlled rack and pinion creatively provides a
plausible solution. The servo will be timed to close
after a set amount of time to ensure proper payload
retrieval. Synchronization between AGSE and
Payload Bay will be tested and optimized for proper
timing.
The RF transmitter will provide a signal to the AGSE
to confirm completion of retrieval process. Testing
and analysis will be done to ensure proper timing is
coordinated.
The retention clips will provide a compression fit to
secure the payload within the assembly. Design
optimization will be carried out on the dimensions
of the clips to ensure the most ease during the
retrieval process that will provide the best security
of the cache.
Table 54: Design Considerations
Safety and Security Hazards

Separation of the Nose cone at the distinct
sections anytime during flight or descent.
Solution
The QUIK-latch system provides approximately
double the force required to hold the system
together while undergoing the maximum drag force
Failure of Electronics due to power supply.
Payload cache is destroyed in the event of a crash

landing.
QUIK-Latch becomes lodged or stuck upon

retrieval of nose cone after recovery.
of 78lbf. A ground ejection test will be done once

assembly is complete to confirm results.
A separate power supply has been given to the RF
transmitter to ensure that the enough power can
be given to the microcontroller and servo. This will
be simulated once all components are gathered.
The rigid structure and series of bulkhead discs and
threaded rods will provide some force relief.
Simulation testing will be run once all parts are
received and accurately dimensions and weighed.
A hole has been made in the middle of the main
bulkhead disc which will allow the disc to be
removed by a centralized pulling force exposing the
locking mechanism as well as the rest of the
payload system.
Table 55: Safety Considerations
SECTION 5: AGSE CRITERIA

Ground Support Performance Criteria
The ground support will be considered a success if the following basic criteria are met:
1) The payload is autonomously retrieved and placed in the appropriate launch vehicle
compartment.
2) The payload compartment is autonomously closed after payload insertion.
3) The launch rail erects the launch vehicle to five degrees off vertical.
4) The ignitor is inserted into the launch vehicle engine.
5) The entire process outlined above occurs completely autonomously in under ten
minutes.
OVERALL AGSE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

The following table outlines the sequence in which the entire autonomous ground support
equipment will perform its tasks.
Sequence
0
Title
Visual Inspection
Power On - Standby
Initialization
3
4
Awaken MAV
Payload Retrieval
Description
Visual inspection of the entire
system. This will ensure that all
components and connections are
safely in place.
Give power to the AGSE. System
in standby mode.
Initializes system; automation
begins.
Rover wakes.
Rover leaves housing unit, seeks
and retrieve payload.
Payload Delivery
MAV Housing
AGSE Automation Standby to

Launch
Final Visual Inspection
Lift-off
Rover travels up the ramp to the

platform and safely deposits the
payload in the rocket. Payload
closes.
Rover travels back down ramp
and into housing unit. Rover
powers down.
Linear actuator begins to retract,
propping rail and rocket. Ignitor
travels into the rocket.
Final visual inspections to verify
all system go.
Button press we have lift off.
Table 56: AGSE Sequence
Figure 160: Launch Rail Assembly in Launch Position
Figure 161: AGSE assembly at an intermediate state dur ing the erection of the rocket
CHANGES SINCE PDR:

While the overall structure of the AGSE has remained mainly unchanged, there are some
important differences from the previous version. The most important of the changes comes from
the new insertion of the igniter into the rocket. Previously, a repurposed telescoping car radio
antenna was used, however concerns over the accuracy and tolerances were addressed and
whether they would potentially damage the rocket motor. It was determined that it would not
be reliable enough to risk damage. The new design instead has the igniter in place and a linear
actuator slowly lowers the rocket into its final position.
The other main change to the design of the AGSE comes from the ramp for the rover. To
lower the angle that the ramp is set for the rover and to decrease the overall width dimension
the ramps orientation was changed so that it would be parallel to the rest of the AGSE instead of
perpendicular. This allows for a smaller angle making the rover more stable and having it exert
less power to climb to the top of the AGSE.
The rest of the changes are just finalizing the design. Wiring diagrams were created as
well as some basic code to understand how communication of the computer systems are
completed as well as computer control of all the electronics are being handled. Components
were added to the assembly to understand placement for the wiring diagram.
OVERALL DIMENSIONS AND GROUND SUPPORT OPERATION

Dimension
At resting position
At launch position
Length
Width
Height
Weight
108.00
68.81
31.86
126.33
108.00
68.81
104.46
126.33
Table 57: Dimensions
The Support:
The main support of the AGSE comes from a member system of machine frames and
locking system. The machine frames will be made from 6061T6 aluminum and the 3 styles of
connectors that will link between these parts. The base dimensions itself are 9 x 3 x 1.5. The
framework will be able to hold all of the working components mostly within its foot-print aside
from the ramp that the rover will use to reach the rocket. The width of the platform was set to
make a stable enough platform for so that the rocket will be impossible tip over with conditions
that would be acceptable to launch in. One of the major advantages of this design is that the
rocket gets placed in the center of the AGSE before launch as has massive stability due to its
position in the AGSE.
The box in style truss structure adds massive amount of stiffness to the design without adding
massive amount of weight. Currently, this part roughly weighs 41 lbs. Another benefit of the
design is its ability to come apart with screws and be put together again which will enables
mobility of this system and with many of the parts being manufactured at an external company
with higher precision tools than our facilities have, the final product would have high tolerances
for when final assembly takes place. Also the entire support would be able to be disassembly for
transport and placed back together with just a wrench.
Figure 162: The framework base body
The ramp would allow to rover to deliver the payload to the rocket before launch
and is sheet aluminum with a supporting structure underneath to strengthen the part. This is set
a 30 degree angle which is the maximum angle that rover team required of the ramp. This angle
will be experimented with to increase the speed of the rover whilst retaining as small of a foot
print as possible.
Figure 163: Rover Ramp
Stability and safety of the platform:

To determine the stability of the platform from forces that could knock it over we would
use static equilibrium to determine when the sum of the forces and moments are no longer
equal to zero in every direction. For simplicity we will use the center of gravity of the rocket as a
guided point for which a force would be applied to structure.
Friction force: =
= 0
With the center of gravity being in the middle of the AGSE, the smallest moment
arm would be laterally.
Thus the moment that the weight at the center of gravity of the AGSE with the rocket
included would be:
= 100 (1.5) = 150
To be able to tip the device over, the assumption that frictional force would have to be
greater that the moment force will be assumed here:
150 = (4),
F = 37.5 lb approx. center of gravity of the rocket

Once the rocket is in launch position, the only thing that would foreseeably give force the
system would be the atmosphere, and if wind would generating 37.5lbs of force on the rocket,
the rockets launch would be cancelled.
FEA ANALYSIS
Figure 164: Main Supporting Beam Load
This is a simulation of the supporting member of the rail, the load would be distributed because
the door rail would bear the load it was rated for, and pass it on to the supporting member
underneath. For safety, the over assumption of 50 lbs of the rail and the rocket was used. Each
member would only see half of the forces, so 25 lbs was used to the static simulation. The FOS
was ~5.5 which is well within reason for safety.
Figure 165: Buckling Simulation of a Supporting Beam
A buckling simulation was performed since this is the supporting member and would only
undergo compression. The results gave a load factor of 3.2 at the 75 lbs that this would
foreseably see. However, this is a standard machine frame, for the final design this part would be
the high rigidity variant would have 3 times the thickness. The load that this would see was
calculated from truss analysis of the two pin system. Assuming the support of the rail is at the
exact cg, the entire force would be applied to this supporting member. From there the angle that
it sits at resting (~14 degrees) was used to calculate the force on this member which was
calculated to be 144 lbs., and between the two members would give ~75 lbs per support which
was used for the simulation.
JOINTS
The connecting piece between the various beams are the machine frame joints, they were
designed to have connect and attach using the naturally high coefficient of friction of aluminum.
So on the much thinner beams, the stress of the load is distributed between a large surface area
rather than a small bolt hole. In total there are three type that we are using. They consist of
three parts that clamp upon the aluminum extrusions creating the final joint.
Figure 166: Ground Support Connecting Joints
The first one shown above connects two pieces of extrusion together, these mostly are
used to create the outer truss framework, and the second one connects three piece together
and forms the corners of the truss framework.
Figure 167: Articulated Joint
Lastly, this one will be modified to be used as an articulated joint. Smoothed and greased, to
reduce the coefficient of friction and reducing the tension on the bolt, these will be used to hold
the support beam extrusions and allow the rotation movement that is need for the rail to be
extended.
MOVEMENT FROM RESTING TO THE LAUNCHING POSITION:

The original design had a stationary hinge at the base of the autonomous ground support
equipment (AGSE) and used a motor and gearbox to raise the rail from the initial horizontal
position to the final position and 5 degrees off vertical. The newer design instead uses a double
connecting rod system. The linear actuator will pull the rail towards the center of the AGSE and a
secondary support beam that is pinned further up the rail will force the rail to change angle to
the desired angle.
To determine the geometry of the system we decided to fix some position into the most
opportune places. We considered that the distance that the support beam would attach to the
rail would be around the center of gravity of the rocket (Ca in the figure 1 and figure 2). Since the
linear actuator has a specific stroke length (La in the figure 2), this was fixed the overall
displacement of the linear actuators attachment point to the rail. As the support beam could
not be horizontal at stationary its attachment was placed a distance H (in figure 1 and figure 2)
on the AGSE. Using the change in the overall length in the geometry (L in figure 1 and figure 2),
and knowing the angle at which the rail would be initially and at the final position and formula
was created to determine the one unknown, which would be the support length (S in figure 1
and figure 2). This created the following equation:
+ 2 2 = + cos(85) + 2 ( sin(85) + )2
Using a computational solver, S was found for various builds to see what would be most
optimum for our structure including different stoke length linear actuators. We concluded that
placing the linear actuator 12 along the rail and then using the predicted approximate center of
gravity of 40 on the rocket created Ca to be equal to 24, and finally H was given a value of 18
to create a large enough initial angle of the support beam to reduce the amount of holding stress
it would undertake. The 12 from the base of the rail of the linear actuator allows the whole
system to wing inside the framework allowing the center of gravity to be lowered into the
system as shown in figure 3.
Figure 168: Demonstration of the calculations that were used to develop the equation above.
Figure 169: Final Launch Rail configuration
Figure 170: Launch configuration.
MOTION AND STABLITIY ANALTSIS

To hold and allow for the movement of the rail, door hanger mechanism for sliding doors
will be purchased and used as shown in the blue and red in the next diagram. Each one is rated
for 200 pounds.
Figure 171: Motion Close-up
The linear actuator is rated to move a .98 in/s with no load and .78 in/s at max load capacity. In
total it would take at maximum of 40 seconds to lift the system into the final position. The
importance of the speed at which this movement performs is critical for the time constraint that
the AGSE has to perform in.
Angular velocity of the rail (in degrees/s)

6.0000E+00
5.0000E+00
4.0000E+00
3.0000E+00
2.0000E+00
1.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.000
Rail_assemb-1 Angular
Velocity2 (deg/sec) Ref.
Coordinate System:
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
sec
Figure 172: Rail Angular Velocity
The importance of the speed at which this movement performs is critical for the time constraint
that the AGSE has to perform in. However, it shouldnt occur too quickly either potentially
harming the rail or the rocket outer shell.
LOCKING AFTER MOVEMENT AND INSERTION OF IGNITION:

The original design used a secondary beam attached to the rail that would move along
the AGSE and lock into a niche in the AGSE to keep the rail stead, the newer design uses stops in
the and the static load of the linear actuator to keep the rail steady. This is 400 lbs static force,
and at the launch position would take 4589 lbs along the path of the rail to go beyond that force.
There will also be a stopper in the rail (not shown) that will prevent the wheel from overextending past the desired 85 degrees, regardless of the linear actuator. This will create a
mechanical lock between the stoppers and linear actuator that will hold the rail in place. The
Supporting member of the rail will have two side bars as shown in the previous diagram that will
help reduce any lateral movement that may otherwise disrupt a rocket launch.
Insertion of the igniter into the rocket now has changed from PDRs telescoping radio
antenna to a rocket slider system. The radio antenna was found to be too unreliable in its
tolerances created issues where it have too much lateral movement potentially having the
igniter scratch and damage the motor as it is being inserted. Ideas for correcting this issues were
addressed but ultimately the risk was too severe to continue with the method. A new method of
insertion was then developed. The new method now uses a linear slider, linear actuator, igniter
straw, and the new assembly also includes the cup to keep the rocket stable with on it platform.
When the rocket is placed on the AGSE, it is placed 24 above the blast plate and
attached to a linear actuator. The straw with igniter it attached the blast plate and pre wired.
The cup and linear slider with bearing are attached to the holding linear actuator and make the
rocket stable and easy to slide on the rail. Once the rail and rocket are raised to the 85 degrees
from horizontal, the linear actuator then proceeds to lower the rocket onto the blast plate
effectively placing the igniter into the rocket. And the rocket would be ready to fire. They would
also have other benefits versus the old design as well. Since there would be nothing placed
behind the blast plate, the rocket and rail can be placed closer to the ground increasing the
stability of the entire system.
Figure 173: Ignitor Insertion System
NEXT STEPS:
In order to keep with our current time frame the next steps will be taken to keep the project on
track:
Now that the outline of how the system operates, a microcontroller and the entire
electrical system will be developed that can operate the procedures for safely bringing
the rocket into launch position.
More simulations will be performed, including full assembly simulations to determine
the FOS and the stress that the components can handle. This will include, drop tests,
buckling tests, static load tests.
Designing the final piece of ignitor insertion will also be further developed.
The ramp may also be continually changed to meet the requirements for the payload
retrieval system.
Designing a blast plate that will protect the environment and the AGSE from the launch
gases
Finalizing dimensions of key components and ordering components.
COMPONENTS LIST
Figure 174: PA-04 Linear Actuator
We are using a PA-04 Linear Actuator from Progressive Automations. The PA-04 Linear Actuator has an IP-66
rating; it is completely dust tight and offers water resistance to the enclosure that drives the linear actuator.
Having dust tight enclosures on components that are sent to celestial bodies that lack atmosphere or erosion
is beneficial to the reliability of the system. For example: the surface of Mars experiences dust storms
frequently, and if you have an open mechanical system to the atmosphere theres a high probability that dust
will damage the inner workings. And although theres very little liquid water on Mars, having water resistance
components add another layer of reliability.
Figure 175: PA-04 Linear Actuator (Dimensions in Inches)
PA-04 SPECIFICATIONS
Input Voltage
12V DC
Stroke
40 inches
Force
400 lbs
Speed
0.98"/sec (400 lbs)
Protection Class
IP66
Operational Temperature
-26C~+65C
Noise
db<45(A)
Duty Cycle
20%
Limit Switch
Built In, Non-Adjustable
Current (full load)

12 A
Mounting Holes
0.40"
Screw Type
ACME
Housing Type
Aluminum allow
Wire Length
60"
Fully Retracted
7.87" + 40
Fully Extended
7.87" + 40 + 40
The member that connects the 80-20 rail to the PA-04 Linear Actuator is at a 14 degrees incline.
We estimate that our rocket and rail system will weigh at 50lbs at its center of gravity. By using
trigonometry we find that we need a 145 pound-force acting on the linkage to raise our rocket
to 5 degrees off zenith. The PA-04 Linear Actuator is rated for a 400 pound-force load, which is
roughly 2.7 times more force that we actually need. This is gives us safety overhead and
ensures that our rocket will reach its final position. The static load is rated the same as the push
load so once the rocket it propped up into position, the actuator will firmly hold it in place.
Figure 176: 12V DC Speed vs Load
At sequence initiation the linear actuator is expected to be fully extended, and at launch the
linear actuator is expected to be fully retracted. The 400 lbs PA-04 model is rated for
0.98/seconds. With a 40-inch stroke, we expect roughly 41 seconds of driving time.
Figure 177: 12V DC Current vs Load
Since the heaviest force experienced by the linear actuator is 145 pounds, we expect a
maximum current draw of 8 amps.
Figure 178: Ground Support Top View
Figure 179: Ground Support Side View
The AGSE frame will be built using piping frame purchased from Misumi. We are using No. 28
FFAU High Rigidity Type Piping.
Figure 180: Misumi piping cross-section drawing
The High Rigidity Type piping has a cross-sectional area of 11.93 inches-squared. This will be
sufficient enough to prevent any sort of buckling caused by load applied. The piping is rated for
1/2 pound-per-foot. We require 80 feet worth of piping. This calculates to be roughly 40
pounds worth of piping needed to build the AGSE frame.
Full Ground Support Assembly
Figure 181: Full AGSE assembly
Part No.
1
Name
Sheet Metal Ramp
Linear Actuator
10ft 80/20 Aluminum

Launch Rail
Ignition Plate
Guide Rails and wheels
Frame
Stability Rails
Description
A sheet metal ramp with
bracing underneath.
MAV will travel and
deliver payload to rocket
by climbing the ramp
48-inch linear actuator
that will retract and
erect the railing.
Rocket will sit on this
railing. Railing will
provide stability for lift
off.
Steel Plate that protects
electronics from
exhaust.
Guide rails for wheels to
travel and allows Launch
Rails movement.
Aluminum frame where
components are
mounted to and
provides ground
clearance.
Aluminum tubes that
provide extra stability.
Weight (lbs)
6.77
42
9.89
25
15
Table 58: AGSE Components
Not Pictured Above:
Name
Battery
Integrated System
Description
Provide power to AGSE
System. 12V 20Ah
Raspberry Pi Microcontroller
used to automate AGSE. This
includes various electronics,
circuits, relays, and wiring.
Weight (lbs)
10.5
10
Table 59: Miscellaneous Components
COMMUNICATION OF THE SYSTEM:
Figure 182: System communication.
The communication between all of the computer and peripherals. Using RF transmitters
and receivers (noted in the dotted line), the rover, AGSE, and payload bay will be able to
communicate with each other. This allows the AGSE to know when certain milestones are
completed in its mission to raise the rocket with a payload inside. It also ensures that the AGSE
will not be able to launch a rocket if something has malfunctioned in its procedures. The blue
section are of the main AGSE and include everything attached to this part including the lights,
actuators, control panels, and switches. In red is the payload bay system that will close after the
payload has been placed in from the rover. In green is the rover, this system is very complex
and in this analysis it just shows how its computer communicates with the rest of the AGSE
system.
AGSE WIRING DIAGRAM
Figure 183: Ground Support Wiring Diagram
REQUIREMENTS AND VERIFICATION

Req.
Number
Requirement
Design Feature
Verification
Method
3.2.1.1
3.2.1.2
3.2.1.3
3.2.1.6
3.2.1.7
3.2.1.8
3.2.2.2
3.2.2.3
3.2.4.1
3.2.4.3
3.2.4.4
3.2.4.5
3.2.4.6
Teams will position their launch vehicle

horizontally on the AGSE.
A master switch will be activated to power
on all autonomous procedures and
subroutines.
After the master switch is turned on, a
pause switch will be activated, temporarily
halting all AGSE procedure and
subroutines.
Once the pause switch is deactivated, the
AGSE will progress through all subroutines
starting with the capture and containment
of the payload, then erection of the launch
platform, and lastly the insertion of the
motor igniter. The launch platform must
be erected to an angle of 5 degrees off
vertical pointed away from the spectators.
The one team member will arm all
recovery electronics.
Once the launch services official has
inspected the launch vehicle and declares
that the system is eligible for launch,
he/she will activate a master arming
switch to enable ignition procedures.
All AGSE systems shall be fully
autonomous.
Any pressure vessel used in the AGSE will
follow all regulations set by requirement
1.12.
Each launch vehicle must have the space
to contain a cylindrical payload
approximately 3/4 inch in diameter and
4.75 inches in length.
The payload will not contain any hooks or
other means to grab it.
The payload may be placed anywhere in

the launch area for insertion, as long as it
is outside the mold line of the launch
vehicle when placed in the horizontal
position on the AGSE.
The payload container must utilize a
parachute for recovery and contain a GPS
or radio locator.
Each team will be given 10 minutes to

autonomously capture, place, and seal the
payload within their rocket, and erect the
The launch rail will begin in the

horizontal position.
A master switch will be included
in the Launch Controller.
Inspection
A pause switch will be

incorporated to the Launch
Controller.
Inspection
A robot arm will grip the payload

and drop into the vehicle. The
launch rail will be raised using a
linear actuator at the base. The
igniter will be attached to a rack
and will be raised using a small
stepper motor, inserting the
igniter into the motor.
An exterior arming switch will
located outside each electronics
bay to turn on the altimeters.
A master arming switch will be
included in the Launch
Controller to enable the ignition
of the motor.
Analysis
Testing
The AGSE will be fully

commanded through an Arduino
Mega microcontroller board.
No pressure vessels will be used
in the AGSE.
Inspection
A payload bay has been

designed to comfortably contain
the payload within its bounds.
Analysis
Testing
The payload will not be altered

by the team. The AGSE robot
arm will be tasked with gripping
and capturing the payload.
The team will determine the
exact distance required for the
robot arm to grasp the payload
and insert it into the vehicle.
Analysis
Testing
The payload section will be

deployed with the upper
airframe of the vehicle,
containing the drogue and a
main parachute and a GPS unit.
Trial runs will be conducted to
validate the total run time from
start to launch.
Inspection
Inspection
Testing
Inspection
Inspection
Analysis
Testing
Testing
3.2.5.1.3
3.2.1.5.4
rocket to a vertical launch position five

degrees off vertical. Insertion of igniter
and activation for launch are also included
in this time.
A safety light that indicates that the AGSE
power is turned on. The light must be
amber/orange in color. It will flash at a
frequency of 1 Hz when the AGSE is
powered on, and will be solid in color
when the AGSE is paused while power is
still supplied.
An all systems go light to verify all systems
have passed safety verifications and the
rocket system is ready to launch.
A safety light will be

incorporated on the side of the
launch rail to show that power is
ON.
Inspection
A green light will be

incorporated on the side of the
launch rail and turned ON when
the LCO activates the master
arming switch.
Inspection
Table 60: AGSE Verification
Rover Design
Figure 184: Curiosity Jr. Rover
The payload retrieving rover will be twin treaded, servo controlled, and computer - controlled by a
RaspberryPi. Servos will be used to control the autonomous motion of the rover, in addition to controlling
the extendable claw used to retrieve the payload and place it in its respective compartment. Python will be
used to write the code for rover retrieval process. The payload will be searched for by a webcam and
computer vision through openCV python. After the payload has been located by the rover, it will navigate
to it and retrieve it with the claw.
The payload compartment in the launch vehicle will be marked with a specific color combination
recognizable by the rovers computer vision, thus guiding it to the correct position. The structure of the rover
will be 3D printed in order to reduce weight and add flexibility the structures design process. The rover will
have the ability to be started and paused through a wireless connection with the Raspberry Pi.
SELECTED COMPONENTS
RaspberryPi
Figure 185: RaspberryPi computer
The Raspberry Pi was chosen for this project for several reasons. The RaspberryPi is a small and
versatile microcontroller. It is able to run a full version of a linux operating system due to its embedded linux
platform. In addition, this microcontroller is more geared towards video processing, which is necessary for
this given application. The advantage of working in a linux environment is the ability to use commercially
available equipment such as USB webcams, Bluetooth, and wireless dongles. OpenCV python was chosen
because it can be used natively and without modification on the RaspberryPi.
Figure 186: Diagram of Raspberry Pi.
The RaspberryPi is small enough to mount anywhere on the rover. Also sufficient amount of
information is found on the internet to assist programing this computer.
Webcam
Figure 187: Standard Webcam
Due to the flexible nature of the RaspberryPi, the Linux operating system, and openCV-python, the
team will be able to buy an ordinary USB webcam. This goes with the theme of the launch vehicle of
commercially available parts. If web cam where to fail our team could quickly and inexpensively replace it.
Treads
Figure 188: Left rover tread.
Due to design development, we have chosen to use treads instead of wheels. The use of wheels
would have added two more servos to each side. Increasing power demand and programing complexity.
Treads will provide a stable platform for the rover while only using one servo per track. Also allowing ease of
programing the control of the rover. Treads also proved a good all terrain traction on Earth and on Mars. Also
treads can easily be taken off and replace in case a link breaks.
Figure 189: Drawing of tread assembly.
We will be using a tread kit from Vex robotics. The modular design allows us to place the treads in a
configuration that would provide us with the most stability.
Arm
Figure 190: Curiosity Jr arm.
The mission of the robotic arm for the rover is to pick up the payload bay from the ground and place
it in the payload bay of the launch vehicle. For this task the arm has a robotic claw which can open and close.
The best geometry is for picking up the payload is still being designed and tested.
Figure 191: Rover arm claw.
Robotic arm will be able to pick up the payload over16 inches away. Shown in figure below.
Figure 192: Robot arm pick up length.
The rover arm will also rotate around the base to be able to pick up the payload if it is next to the rover.
Figure 193: Arm base motion.
Figure 194: Rover arm drawing.
Base
Figure 195: Base with tracks
Figure 196: Base
The base for the rover will be 3D printed. This allows for more design freedom on the base also allows the
mounting location for the arm to be printed so no extra hardware needs to be bought.
Transmission
Figure 197: RF transmitters
315 MHz RF transmitters and receivers will be used to communicate between the rover and the AGSE. We
will be using RF due to its low power usage and low cost of implementation vs Wi-Fi.
Continuous Servos
Figure 198: Continuous Servo
To actuate the wheels, continuous servos will be used instead of motors. Continuous servos are
easier to use with microcontrollers than motors. In addition, servos require significantly less power to
operate than motors. The lower power consumption allows for smaller batteries, which alleviates overall
weight. The servos we are using have a fair amount of torque which is useful when moving the rover. The
high torque is also useful for overcoming the higher friction of the treads.
Standard Servo
Figure 199: Standard Servo
Regular servos will be used to actuate the claw. The webcam will be mounted on the claw that will
retrieve the payload, which will move both laterally and axially to center the payload in the frame of the
camera. Servos will also be used to actuate the gripping mechanism that will carry the payload to the rocket.
The servos are useful for this function for many of the same reasons that justify their use to move the rover.
The have low power consumption and they are easy to use with microcontrollers.
OVERALL PROCESS
The rover will be comprise of tracks, of which will be powered by continuous servos. On the rover
there will be a claw with a webcam will be mounted atop it. This will serve to track and retrieve the payload.
The claw will laterally and axially around the area to track the payload. The team has written openCV code
that is able to track an object and give its location within the frame. The position of the payload will be used
to move the servos on the claw and center the payload in the middle of the frame.
While the payload is being tracked, the rover will be moving towards the payload. Once the rover is a
certain distance from the payload, it will stop and actuate the claw to pick up the payload. Once in possession
of the payload, the rover will make its way to the launch vehicle. The launch vehicle will be marked with a
color cue that will be recognized by the openCV program. Once at the launch vehicle payload compartment,
the claw will deposit the payload in the compartment.
OPENCV TRACKING CODE

Import numpy as np
import cv2
cap = cv2.VideoCapture('slow.flv')
# take first frame of the video

ret,frame = cap.read()
# setup initial location of window

r,h,c,w = 250,90,400,125 # simply hardcoded the values
track_window = (c,r,w,h)
# set up the ROI for tracking

roi = frame[r:r+h, c:c+w]
hsv_roi = cv2.cvtColor(roi, cv2.COLOR_BGR2HSV)
mask = cv2.inRange(hsv_roi, np.array((0., 60.,32.)), np.array((180.,255.,255.)))
roi_hist = cv2.calcHist([hsv_roi],[0],mask,[180],[0,180])
cv2.normalize(roi_hist,roi_hist,0,255,cv2.NORM_MINMAX)
# Setup the termination criteria, either 10 iteration or move by atleast 1 pt

term_crit = ( cv2.TERM_CRITERIA_EPS | cv2.TERM_CRITERIA_COUNT, 10, 1 )
while(1):
ret ,frame = cap.read()
if ret == True:
hsv = cv2.cvtColor(frame, cv2.COLOR_BGR2HSV)
dst = cv2.calcBackProject([hsv],[0],roi_hist,[0,180],1)
# apply meanshift to get the new location

ret, track_window = cv2.meanShift(dst, track_window, term_crit)
# Draw it on image
x,y,w,h = track_window
img2 = cv2.rectangle(frame, (x,y), (x+w,y+h), 255,2)
cv2.imshow('img2',img2)
k = cv2.waitKey(60) & 0xff

if k == 27:
break
else:
cv2.imwrite(chr(k)+".jpg",img2)
else:
break
cv2.destroyAllWindows()
cap.release()
Changes since PDR

The changes since PDR are a more developed rover and a base, drive train, and arm design. The Base, and
drive train are ready to start manufacturing. Bench tests have shown the web cam and program is able to
find the difference in color of an object like the payload.
SECTION 6: PROJECT PLAN

Budget Plan
Table 61: Project Budget
Table 62: Travel Budget
Funding Plan
For the 2016-2017 NASA USLI Competition, the team plans on raising funds from both local and
national contributors.
The team will call, or personally visit, different types of engineering companies and firms and present
them our funding proposal. The team hopes to foster a sponsorship between FIU and these companies by
showcasing our ideas. This, in turn, will further FIUs relationship with various STEM employers located in
South Florida, as well as increasing exposure of these companies.
On campus, the team will display last years competition launch vehicle in a zone with heavy foot
traffic. This will inspire students and awaken their curiosity in rocketry and of the building process involved in
making a functioning launch vehicle. The team will have conversations with these students and answer all the
questions they have; and hopes that by educating the student body at FIU, they will be more susceptible to
contributing towards this project. The team also plans on 3D printing charms and keychains for fundraising
for this competition.
ASME has grants and opportunities for teams that take on projects such as NASA USLI. The team will
write a proposal and submit an application for these grants. FIU also has grants that the team will apply for as
the well.
In the past, the local community has been supportive of ASME and the PantherWorks Space team. By
outreaching to the local public schools, (see Educational Plan and Engagement) the team hopes to generate
enough public interest for contributions.
Web presence is a pivotal part of fundraising. The team has begun creating a social media (Facebook,
Reddit, Instagram, etc.) and a GoFundMe and Kickstarter. By presenting a proposal, the team looks forward
to generating support from people around the nation. The team will also post up images and tutorials
showing the different techniques used in making this years competition launch vehicle.
Timeline
OVERALL TIMELINE
CURRRENT DETAILED TIMELINE
Educational Engagement
As fun as designing and building a rocket is, our NSL team at Florida International University also
dedicated time to visit local schools in South Florida and engaged them in an educational outreach
program.
Theres a Greek Proverb that states: A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they
know they shall never sit it. Our team strongly abides by those words; and although were not old men
in a literal sense, we still recognize the importance of participating in the intellectual growth of the
younger generation. Our team believes that if we spark the imagination and curiosity in those who
precede after us, we are planting a positive seed that will benefit society. By encouraging young kids to
pursue a study in a STEAM related field, we are flourishing the future.
Figure 200: PantherWorks Outreach Event
The team visited students who were between 3 and 6 grade. These grades were chosen because of the
appropriateness of our teams lesson plan. The lesson planned consisted of a lecture in the introduction
to the flight mechanics of rockets (in very relatable terms), followed by a team exercise where the kids
would gather in groups and design their very own rockets.
rd
th
The lecture introduced the basic principles of flight such as: gravity, drag force, acceleration, escape
velocity, center of mass, center of pressure, aerodynamics, and propellants. Throughout the entire
discourse, our team heavily encouraged the kids to have an open discussion by asking any questions
they had. The team discovered that this approach of teaching resulted in higher involvement of these
students where questions like Is time travel possible?, What is a black hole?, and Why is the
surface of Mars red? were entertained. By opening the lecture to feedback and imagination, the
students fostered enjoyment for science and space. The teams goal was to make something as complex
as aerospace engineering, into something enjoyable and easily understandable; every student was a
genius that day.
Once the lecture was over, the students mimicked professional engineers and gathered into groups to
accomplish a challenge. The team asked the students to design and develop a rocket using the
theoretical knowledge they learned in the lecture portion and compete to see which rocket would travel
the highest. The available materials were cardboard stock for fins, duct tape for adhesive, a 2-liter bottle
as the main body for the rocket, and pressurized water as a propellant. By introducing a hands-on or
technical portion to the lesson plan, our team found that the students retained the theoretical
knowledge better.
Visiting these students was a very humbling experience.
Figure 201: Water Bottle Rocket Activity
Another educational goal that was accomplished this design period was the outreach done to fellow
students. The NSL team at various times held open houses at the workshop where previous rockets
were on display. Our team encouraged technical knowledge in building competitive rockets by
explaining the processes used to put them together. Things like wrapping phenolic tubing in carbon fiber
for structural reinforcement, or manufacturing a prototype airbrake system were showcased to entice
fellow students in supporting the NSL team and ensure future interest in the NSL challenge.
APPENDIX: COMPLETE PROJECT DRAWINGS

Launch Vehicle Drawings
Parachute
E-bay
Airbrake
Propulsion bay
AGSE Drawings

Fiu NSL CDR PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fiu NSL CDR PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NASA University Student Launch Initiative

2015-2016 Critical Design Report for MAV

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 1

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 2

SUbscale Mission ...................................................................................................................................... 116

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 3

Rack and Pinion Assembly ........................................................................................................................ 167

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 4

Funding Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 212

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 5

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 6

Table 38: Launchpad Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 151

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 7

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 8

Figure 34: Change in Propulsion Bay .................................................................................................................. 43

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 9

Figure 73: Proposed First Iteration Drag Force Calculation ................................................................................ 73

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 10

Figure 112: Thrust load path in airbrake. ......................................................................................................... 108

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 11

Figure 151: Rocksim Simulation ........................................................................................................................ 148

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 12

Figure 190: Curiosity Jr arm. ............................................................................................................................. 202

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 13

SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF CDR REPORT

Florida International University

Launch Vehicle Summary

Signal Main Deployment

Table 1: Launch Vehicle Overview

Table 2: Overall Ground Support Dimensions

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 14

SECTION 2: CHANGES MADE SINCE PDR REPORT

The parachute bay was shortened in response to the above change.

AirBrake flaps have been configured with holes.

AirBrake stepper motor has been decided upon.

AirBrake interfaces and linkages have been developed.

Fin semi-span increase by one inch.

Motor casing changed from a six grain to a four grain case.

AGSE Criteria Changes

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 15

Project Plan Changes

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 16

SECTION 3: VEHICLE CRITERIA

FIU ASME will follow and comply

FIU ASME wishes to protect the

FIU ASME will conduct a

FIU ASME wishes to verify that

FIU ASME will complete a fullscale test flight of the vehicle

FIU ASME will contact several

Table 3: Basic Mission Verification Metrics

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 17

MISSION SUCCESS CRITERIA

Figure 1: Overall Launch Vehicle Assembly

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 18

Figure 2: Overall Vehicle Configuration

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 19

Furthermore, the coasting distance can then be computed as follows:

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 20

The center of gravity location is calculated using:

Stability and Construction

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI CDR | 21

Figure 3: Rocksim Simulation of Launch Vehicle

Figure 4: Von Karman nosecone, current model