Critical Design Review Presentation 2013-2014 Project Nova.

Critical Design Review Presentation

2013-2014 Project Nova

Final Launch Vehicle DimensionsFinal Launch Vehicle Dimensions

Size and MassLength 108 in

Diameter 5 in

Dry Weight (Without Motor) 31.1 lbm

Wet Weight 56.1 lbm

Final Launch Vehicle DimensionsFinal Launch Vehicle DimensionsN

osec

one

Final Launch Vehicle DimensionsFinal Launch Vehicle DimensionsR

ecov

ery

Sect

ion


Boo

ster

Sec

tion

Final Launch Vehicle DimensionsFinal Launch Vehicle DimensionsFin Dimensions

Root Chord 8.40 in

Tip Chord 4.00 in

Height 5.50 in

Sweep Length 5.00 in

Sweep Angle 42.5°

Final Launch Vehicle DesignFinal Launch Vehicle Design

Key Design FeaturesKey Design Features

• The Threat Analysis Payload system has aerodynamically shaped heat shields to protect the camera hardware from the forces the rocket will experience passing through transonic conditions into supersonic conditions.


• PASTE A PICTURE OF THE HEAT SHIELDS HERE

Key Design FeaturesKey Design Features• A ballast tank has been incorporated into

the overall design of the rocket to combat two things:• Differentiating stability calibers thru design

and manufacturing phases due to imprecise mass measurements done during design

• To increase the weight of the vehicle without having large affects on the stability caliber should our final vehicle weight fall below the optimum calculated weight


CG Position

Final Motor ChoiceFinal Motor Choice• Motor selection was accomplished using the criteria

needed for mission success, specifically the motor had to meet the following requirements:

• The motor had to have enough total impulse to accelerate the rocket up to supersonic speeds without going to far outside of the transonic region, ideally around Mach 1.0 – 1.2.

• The motor could not deliver the rocket past the designated altitude limit of 20,000 feet, as set by the USLI competition rules.

• The motor had to deliver the payload to teams target altitude of 15,500 feet given any mass increases on the order of ~20%.

Final Motor ChoiceFinal Motor Choice

Cesaroni N2200 DataTotal Impulse 2712.6 lb-s

Maximum Thrust 647.3 lbf

Average Thrust 488.8 lbf

Specific Impulse 201.0 s

Burntime 5.55 s

Sellers: What’s Up Hobbies (Stockton, CA) Wildman Rocketry (Van Orin, IL)


Simulated Apogees with Probable Mass Increases 0% Mass

Increase25% Mass Increase

33% Mass Increase

Total Mass @ Liftoff (lbm) 56.1 70.1 74.6

Apogee Achieved (ft) 18169 15179 14211

Highest Mach # 1.25 1.00 0.93

Optimum Weight: 68.5 lbmMass margin: 22%

Apogee Achieved (ft): 15,508Maximum Mach #: 1.02

Final Motor ChoiceFinal Motor Choice• It should be noted that the optimum weight as

calculated and simulated in various rocketry programs is not 100% accurate. Given the high velocity of the rocket, these programs do not simulate transonic and supersonic flight well. Therefore, the optimum weight will be significantly less than 68.5 lbm. Testing will be done using the full-scale rocket to gather data that will be used to precisely identify the correct optimum weight.


• If the launch site is changed resulting in a ceiling limit of 10,000 feet, the alternate motor will be a Cesaroni M1830. • Estimated altitude: 9174 feet• Estimated Mach achievable: 0.80

• The CMP will be unachievable, however, due to lack of distance and minimized burntime of motor.

Rocket Flight StabilityRocket Flight StabilityCG and CP Locations (as measured from the tip of the nose)

CG Location 67.356 in

CP Location 82.024 in

CG Location CP Location

Stability caliber: 2.93

Rocket Flight StabilityRocket Flight Stability

Simulated Flight Performance DataSimulated Flight Performance Data

Simulated Flight Performance Data @ 56.1 lbm

Altitude (ft) Max Velocity (ft/s)

Max Acceleration (ft/s^2) Average Thrust (lbf) T/W Ratio

18184 1378 324 488 8.70

Velocity off rod (ft/s)

Time to Apogee (s) Flight Time (s) Velocity at Main

Deployment (ft/s)

Velocity at Ground

Impact (ft/s)

66 32.3 419 68.8 11.7


Simulated Flight Performance Data @ 56.1 lbm

Altitude (ft) Max Velocity (ft/s)

Max Acceleration (ft/s^2) Average Thrust (lbf) T/W Ratio

15519 1127 258 488 7.12

Velocity off rod (ft/s)

Time to Apogee (s) Flight Time (s) Velocity at Main

Deployment (ft/s)

Velocity at Ground

Impact (ft/s)

57.2 31.1 347 78.3 13.1


• It should also be noted that with the given configuration of the recovery system, the rocket still generates less than 75 lbf-ft of kinetic energy upon ground landing. This is ascertained by making the assumption that the rocket has fully separated into its three separate sections and that each section weighs less than 27.7 lbm, which if each section increases in weight by 22%, they will be below that mark.

Mass Statement and Mass MarginMass Statement and Mass Margin

• Mass estimations were performed using OpenRocket, which allows:

• All components to be assigned material specifications with designated densities for each material.

• By inputting the lengths and thicknesses for each component, the software calculates the total mass accurately.

• Mass calculations for electronic systems and payloads are estimations currently, and will change as systems are defined, received, and tested throughout the manufacturing process of the rocket.


Mass EstimationsNose Cone 1.7Recovery Section 15.2Bulkheads 1.0Electronics Bay #1 5.0Recovery System 5.0Booster Section 16.0Bulkheads 2.0Motor Mounting System 1.0Electronics Bay #2 3.9Total Weight (without motor) 31.1

Motor 25.0Total Weight (with motor) 56.1


• If the final weight of the rocket exceeds the current calculated estimation, the rocket will have a simulated mass margin of 22% before it will no longer be able to achieve mission requirements.

• Given the inaccuracies of simulations at supersonic speeds, the mass margin will be much lower, approximately around ~15%.

Predicted Drift from Launch PadPredicted Drift from Launch Pad

Drift Estimations

Wind Speed (mph) Drift Distance (ft) Altitude (ft)

0 41.8 18184

5 1717.8 18152

10 3372.5 18051

15 5507.0 17953

20 7579.3 17803

Subscale Test FlightSubscale Test Flight

• The subscale rocket had a structure that was an 80% scale of the full-scale vehicle.

• This scale was chosen to simulate the stability conditions predicted through computer simulations to insure the overall structure of the rocket would be suitable for full-scale flight and would be able maintain the predicted stability.


Subscale Fin Dimensions

Subscale Test FlightSubscale Test FlightSubscale Size and MassLength 86.4 in

Diameter 4 in

Dry Weight (no motor) 10.3 lbm

Wet Weight 11.7 lbm

Subscale MotorManufacturer Aerotech

Designation J270W

Loaded Weight 1.42 lbm

Total Impulse 158.04 lbf–s

Average Thrust 60.70 lbf

Burntime 2.6 s


Main Parachute

Avionics Bay

Drogue Parachute

Motor

Subscale Test FlightSubscale Test Flight Simulated Flight Data Actual Flight DataApogee (ft) 2094 2006.8

Max Velocity (ft/s) 353 352.7

Max Acceleration (ft/s2) 186 283.9

Time to Apogee (s) 12.1 11.1

Flight Time (s) 128 91.7

RecoveryRecovery

• Dual-Deploy System: Drogue and Main• Redundant Charges• Dual Altimeters

RecoveryRecovery

RecoveryRecovery

• Black Powder Charges• 1st Charge: 5 grams → 164 lbf • Backup Charge: 5.5 grams → 180 lbf• Ground Testing

RecoveryRecovery

• Shear Pins• #4-40 nylon machine screws• 10,000 psi shear strength• 2 pins connecting each section• Instron Tensile Stress Testing

RecoveryRecovery

• Drogue Specifications• Parachute Diameter: 17.3 in• Parachute Material: Ripstop Nylon• Shock Cord Length: 300 in• Shock Cord Specification: 1 in diameter

tubular nylon

RecoveryRecovery

• Main Specifications• Parachute Diameter: 138 in• Parachute Material: Ripstop Nylon• Shock Cord Length: 300 in• Shock Cord Specification: 1.5 in diameter

tubular nylon• Testing

Payload Payload

• Design Overview• TAP

• Hardware Integration• Software Integration• Base Station

PayloadPayload

• Design Overview• BPAP

• Hardware Data Collection• Software Processing• Data Collection Post Flight• Analysis

PayloadPayload

• Design Overview• CMP

• Testing Verification• Integration

Requirement FufillmentRequirement Fufillment

• Where we stand• CDR

• Future Endevours

ClosingClosing

• Summary• Questions

Critical Design Review Presentation 2013-2014 Project Nova.

Documents

Transcript of Critical Design Review Presentation 2013-2014 Project Nova.