LionTech Rocket LabsProject Phoenix 2011-2012

Flight Readiness Review

2

Speakers

• Russell Moore …………………………………………………………………Project Manager• Adam Covino…………………………………………Co-Project Manager/Payload Lead• Tony Maurer……………………………………………………………………….Structures Lead• Matt Hanna………………………………………………………………………..Structures Lead• Eric Gilligan……………………………………………………………………………Avionics Lead• Lawrence DiGirolamo…………………………………………………………….Avionics Lead• Heather Dawe …………………………………………………………………..Propulsion Lead• Rob Algazi………………………………………………………………………….Propulsion Lead• Brian Lani………………………………………………………………………………Payload Lead• Brian Taylor…………………………………………………………………….Systems Engineer• Tom Letarte………………………………………………………………………....Safety Officer• Megan Kwolek…………………………………………………………………Financial Officer

3

• 4.5 inch diameter G12 fiberglass

• Modular design to simplify assembly, redesign, and repair

• Redundant motor retention system

Structural Overview

4

• Allows for easy replacement of damaged fins

• Allows experimentation of fin design (to alter the CP and therefore Static Stability)

• CNC machined aluminum– No epoxy or other permanent

bond

• Screws into fin and through body tube

Fin Brackets

5

• Machined aluminum forward motor retainer

• Attaches to motor casing via bolt

• Screwed into airframe– No epoxy or other permanent

bonds• Acts as an avionics bay aft bulk

plate and main parachute anchor point

• Aeropack motor retainer is used for redundancy

Motor Retention

6

• A tensile test of G12 fiberglass provided verification that the forward motor retainer would function safely.

• A factor-of-safety exceeding 20 was measured.

• Failure occurred as planned, signaling that proper manufacturing processes were used

Structural Testing

7

• Removal of Tailcone– Availability of new

motor reduced need for drag reduction

– Manufacturing knowledge and contacts gained for future use

– Redundant motor retention remains through the use of a traditional flange motor retainer (far right)

[aeropack.net/motorretainers.asp]

Structural Changes Made

8

• Final Motor Choice – Animal Works L777• Total impulse: 3136.62 N• Peak thrust: 1000.16 Ns• Burn Time: 4.05 seconds• Average thrust: 774.47 N

Animal Works L777 Motor Casing

Propulsion

9

• Motor Selection– Maximum height

• Desired Apogee: 5000-5280 ft.• AMW L777 Apogee: 5256 ft

– Effects on structural integrity• Dry mass :21.3 lbs • Loaded mass: 29.4 lbs• Length: 89.75 in

– Rail exit velocity• Safe rail exit velocity > 50 ft/s• AMW L777 rail exit velocity: 54.8 ft/s

– Maximum Velocity• Max velocity must be < 1089.23 ft/s• AMW L777 Max velocity: 640 ft/s

– Drift• Max drift < 2628 ft• Drift due to wind speed chart

Propulsion

10

Motor Choices in Proposal• AeroTech K700W• Cesaroni K815-SK• Cesaroni K750• Cesaroni K820-BS• Cesaronie K1440WT

Motor Choices in PDR• AeroTech K780• AeroTech K560• Cesaroni L820-BS• Cesaroni L585

Motor Choices in CDR • Animal Works L777• Cesaroni 995

Motor Choice for FRR• Animal Works L777

Motor Choice Progression

Design modifications

Weight increase, Vendor availability, competition rules

Finalization of weight and project

construction

Propulsion

11

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1400

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Simulated Altitude vs Time VS Flight Data

Altimeter 1 DataAltimeter 2 DataSimulation

Time (s)

Alti

tude

(ft A

GL)

Full Scale Flight Results

12

Avionics & Recovery

PerfectFlite Stratologger (Altimeter 1)

PerfectFlite Stratologger (Altimeter 2)

Aft Forward

GPS Transmitter

9V Altimeter Battery

9V Altimeter Battery

Rotary Switch (Altimeter 1)

Rotary Switch (Altimeter 2)

Note: Not pictured is a Faraday cage to prevent GPS Transmitter RF interference from unintentionally igniting e-matches.

13

Main Parachute Containment Harness

Black Powder Ejection Canister

CD3 Ejection System

Terminal Blocks

Tender-Descender

Forward

Aft

Avionics & Recovery

14

• Apogee– CD3 CO2 ejection device– Black powder ejection charge– Drogue is released and main is held within the airframe by the main parachute containment harness.

• 750 ft AGL– Tender-Descender releases the main and the drogue pulls it out of the airframe and deployment bag.–The drogue and nosecone then completely separate from the main and booster section

Tender-Descender

Avionics & Recovery

[Adapted from EuroRocketry.org][AeroconSystems.com]

15

Avionics & Recovery

•Apogee–Nosecone

– Descent Rate: 103.7 ft/s– KE: 635 ft-lbs

–Booster–Descent Rate: 103.7 ft/s– KE: 3340 ft-lbs

•750 ft AGL– Nosecone

–Descent Rate: 13.1 ft/s–KE: 89.29 ft-lbs

–Booster–Descent Rate: 13.1 ft/s–KE: 53.3 ft-lbs

•20 mph Wind Drift –2240 ft

16

• Maryland-Delaware Rocket Association Launch (Price, MD)– Saturday 3/10:

• Failure Mode: Intricate deployment scheme with a lot of recovery harness resulted in tangling of chutes/harness. Main parachute did not fully deploy.

• Mitigation: Reduced amount of harness by separating the vehicle into drogue/nosecone and main/booster sections at 750ft AGL.

No longer have a cord connecting the

drogue and main lines. Bag stays with

drogue.

Avionics & Recovery

[Adapted from EuroRocketry.org] [Adapted from EuroRocketry.org]

17

• Maryland-Delaware Rocket Association Launch (Price, MD)– Sunday 3/11:

• Failure Mode: At apogee, black powder ejection charge impinged on the Tender-Descender, igniting the b.p. charge inside. This released the main parachute and separated the vehicle into the two sections at apogee, resulting in excessive drift.

• Mitigation: Lengthened the black powder ejection canister such that impingement on the Tender-Descender was not possible. This was tested at the High-Pressure Combustion Lab three times with positive results.

Black Powder Ejection Canister

Tender Descender

Avionics & Recovery

18

• Team Ohio Rocketry Club (TORC – South Charleston, OH)– Saturday 3/18:

• Failure Mode: At apogee, the drogue was released and the main parachute containment harness went taut. The main chute deployment bag protruded from the airframe approx. ~4 in. Later investigation determined that this protrusion allowed the bag to invert its orientation, exposing the open end of the bag to the airflow, which could then pull the chute and bag apart.

• Mitigation: The main parachute containment harness is being shortened such that there is no protrusion of the deployment bag. In this configuration, it is highly unlikely the bag could reorient itself.

Avionics & Recovery

19

• Team Ohio Rocketry Club (TORC – South Charleston, OH)– Saturday 3/17:

• Failure Mode: At apogee, the drogue was released and the main parachute containment harness allowed the deployment bag to protrude from the airframe approx. ~4 in. This protrusion allowed the bag to bend and invert its orientation, exposing the open end of the bag to the airflow, which then pulled the chute and bag apart.

• Mitigation: The main parachute containment harness was shortened such that there is no protrusion of the deployment bag.

• Recovery system worked successfully on 3/25 at Mantua Township Missile Agency (MTMA – Middlefield, OH)

Avionics & Recovery1. Bag protrudes ~4”

2. Pressure forces bag to flip

3. Open end exposed, turbulent air pulls main out

20

Objective:• Set forth by NASA Science Mission

Directorate

• Collect following atmospheric data:

– Pressure/Temperature

– Relative Humidity

– Solar Irradiance

– Ultraviolet Radiation

Payload

21

• Hollow aluminum core bolted to forward and aft bulkplates

• Electronics and wires easily accessed by removal of L-brackets

• Structurally secured by high strength steel all threads– Steel to resist impact damage

• Wooden bulkplates with threaded inserts in forward plate to attach to nosecone– Wood instead of G10 fiberglass to minimize

failure points

Payload

22Single Payload System Schematic

Payload

23

Primary Components:• Arduino Pro 3.3V/ 8MHz – Programmed

microcontroller for each measurement system.

• XBee 900MHz Transmitter – Transmits data collection to ground station.

• High Altitude Sensing Board (HASB) – All encompassing weather board.

• Ultraviolet Sensor – Measures harmful UV-A and UV-B radiation

[www.sparkfun.com]

Payload

24Payload Mission Architecture

Payload

25

Scientific Value:• Determine stability of atmospheric

boundary layer

• Analyze collected information to profile atmospheric boundary layer

• Construct Skew-T Log-P diagram of boundary layer diagram to determine weather severity

Payload

Dew Point

Temperature

Pres

sure

(bar

s)

[www.met.psu.edu]

Isotherms (Celsius)

26

• Entering Operational Phase of Project– Focus on launch safety– Identification of new personnel hazards

• Assembly and Safety Checklists for use at launch– Help ensure safety and rocket success

Team Safety

27

Most Severe RisksRisk Description Likelihood

5=most likelyImpact

5=most harmfulMitigation

Drogue chute fails to deploy

Drogue chute either does not leave the tube or doesn't unravel

2 3 Ground test recovery system for optimal ejection strength

Main chute fails to deploy

Main chute either does not leave the tube or doesn't unravel

2 4 Test ability for airflow to deploy main chute from deployment bag

Main chute deploys first

Main chute deploys at apogee

3 3 Tender Descender testing, Flight testing of recovery system

Main and drogue get tangled

Main chute gets deployed below drogue and tangles

2 4 Two separate descending components

Project falls behind schedule

Major milestones are not met in time

4 3 Weekly status meetings, project plan

Labor leaves/graduates

Seniors graduate or students stop attending meetings

5 3 Recruitment at beginning of each semester. Team building activities

Project is over budget

Test/travel/fabrication costs exceed expectations

4 4 Compare prices from different vendors, avoid excess shipping costs

Risk Analysis

28

“Involve the entire Penn State USLI team in multiple, quality outreach events engaging the surrounding elementary, middle and high school’s in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics topics.”

Educational Engagement

29

Subsystem TotalStructures & Aerodynamics $ 1,856.76 Avionics & Recovery $ 925.62 Payload $ 1,243.51 Propulsion $ 502.00 Miscellaneous $ 4.21 Total $ 4,527.89

Cost Summary

30

• Structural Components selected and tested• Flight tests and ground tests fixed cause of

recovery error• Finalized motor selection• Testing and modeling confidence in vehicle

performance parameters for successful flight for competition

Conclusion