Transcript Presentation

Project Nova
Preliminary Design
Review (PDR)
Vehicle Overview
Nose Cone
Avionics Section
Booster Section
Main Parachute
Tube Coupler
Fins
Shock Cord
Drogue
Motor
Avionics Bay
Shock Cord
Payload Bay
Static Stability Chamber
Vehicle Dimensions
•
•
•
Length: 108 in
Diameter: 5 in
Mass: 55.2 lbm
•
Material:
•
•
•
18 in
41 in
108 in
Nose cone –
Fiberclass
Body – Fiberglass
Fins – Fiberglass
Vehicle Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Number of fins: 4
Root chord: 7 in
Tip chord: 3.352 in
Height: 4 in
Sweep length: 2.309 in
Sweep angle: 30°
Static Stability Margin
•
•
•
CG Location: 66.655 in
CP Location: 77.468 in
Stability: 2.16 cal
77.468
66.348
Static Stability Margin
Stability: 3.76
Stability: 2.16
Static Stability Margin
If the final weight of the rocket falls below the
optimal weight, a chamber has been placed
within the rocket where steel discs will be
placed.
• This chamber was placed near the current CG
position to avoid large changes in the stability.
•
Motor
Stability Chamber
Vehicle Justification
The vehicle has been designed to reach a target
altitude of 15,500 feet.
• Its goal is to descend at a controlled rate allowing
the camera payload to survey the ground and
identify hazardous landing areas.
• Using the two criteria's above, the vehicle was
designed around:
•
•
•
•
•
Motor
Aerodynamics
Payload deployment
Payload size
Motor Selection - Comparison
N2200
N2600
Total Impulse (lbf-s)
2712.60
2490.30
Average Thrust (lbf)
488.80
581.20
Length (in)
39.76
39.76
Diameter (in)
3.86
3.86
Loaded Weight (lbm)
25.04
25.31
Propellant Weight (lbm)
13.50
14.59
Motor Selection
•
Justification:
Using the values for typical mass increases
experienced from PDR to final design, an
estimated allowable mass increase was
calculated using the two rocket motors.
• This allowable mass increase would be the
maximum mass increase before the vehicle
would no longer be able to achieve its target
altitude.
•
Motor Selection – Justification (N2600)
0% Mass
Increase
25% Mass
Increase
33% Mass
Increase
Total Mass – Liftoff (lbm)
55.50
69.38
73.82
Propellant Mass (lbm)
14.59
14.59
14.59
Total Mass – Burnout (lbm)
40.61
54.41
58.83
Apogee Achieved (ft)
16301
13759
12904
2.21
2.21
2.21
Stability (cal)
•
The values for apogee achieved and
stability were calculated using OpenRocket.
Motor Selection – Justification (N2600)
•
•
The values for total
mass at liftoff and
apogee achieved at
those masses were
plotted against each
other.
A trendline was plotted
against these values to
provide an equation for
calculating an estimated
value of mass allowed to
achieve 15500 ft.
18000.00
16000.00
14000.00
12000.00
y = -185.94x + 26570
10000.00
8000.00
6000.00
4000.00
2000.00
0.00
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
75.00
Motor Selection – Justification (N2600)
Using the equation, a total mass value was
calculated.
• The optimal mass margin allowed is 6% for this
motor.
•
Optimal: 6%
Total Mass – Liftoff (lbm)
58.70
Propellant Mass (lbm)
14.59
Total Mass – Burnout (lbm)
44.11
Apogee Achieved (ft)
15611
Stability (cal)
2.21
Motor Selection – Justification (N2200)
The same calculations and simulations were
performed using the N2200 motor.
• The optimal mass increase allowable was estimated
to be 23%.
•
Current
25% Mass
Increase
33% Mass
Increase
Optimal:
23%
Total Mass – Liftoff (lbm)
55.20
69.00
.
67.90
Propellant Mass (lbm)
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
Total Mass – Burnout (lbm)
41.70
55.50
59.52
54.40
Apogee Achieved (ft)
17393
15304
14387
15517
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
Stability (cal)
Motor Selection
•
•
Based on the calculations made in the previous slides, the motor that
will provide the best performance for our launch vehicle is the Cesaroni
Technologies N2200.
Possible Dealers:
•
•
What’s Up Hobbies (Stocton, CA)
Wildman Rocketry (Van Orin, IL)
Aerodynamics
•
The total drag coefficient ranges from 0.41 at a Mach number of 0.3
to 0.59 at Mach 1.03, the simulated highest Mach achieved by our
vehicle.
Simulated Performance
•
•
•
Velocity off rod (7 ft): 57.7
ft/s
Apogee: 15517 ft
Time to apogee: 31.1 s
•
•
•
Max velocity: 1133 ft/s
Max acceleration: 260 ft/s2
T/W ratio: 7.20
Simulated Performance
•
The stability of the rocket in a 5mph horizontal wind is shown below. The
vertical orientation decreases from 90°at launch to 55°at apogee.
Simulated Performance
•
The drift of the rocket was calculated under five
wind speeds: 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 mph.
Wind Speed (mph)
Drift (ft)
0
34
5
1453
10
3042
15
4631
20
6677
Construction of Airframe
•
•
•
AutoClave layup
Fiberglass construction
Male vs. female molds
Dual-Deployment Recovery System
•
Stages
Drogue Deployment at Apogee
o Main Deployment at lower, set altitude
o Landing
o
•
Electronics
Altimeter
o Connections
o
Benefits and Disadvantages
•
Benefits
Reduces Drift
o Avoids Initial Deployment at High Speed
o
•
Disadvantages
Possibility of Simultaneous Deployment
o Higher Risk of Failure
o
Safety Advisor
•
Christopher Short
o
o
o
o
o
Certified Class 3 Operator
NAR/TRA Advisor
Will purchase, store, and transport materials
Installs engines on site when ready to test
Guides Team in practicing proper safety
procedures throughout the project
Safety Officer
•
Jacob Herrera
o
o
o
o
o
Briefs Team on proper safety procedures before
each lab meeting
Ensures proper MSDS are on site
Inspects first aid kit and restocks if needed
Inspects lab machinery to ensure its
functionality
Organizes bi-monthly safety meetings to
address any documented incidents and
effectiveness of safety techniques
NAR/TRA Procedures
•
•
•
NAR high powered rocket code will be
reviewed by Team
MSDS are available to ensure materials are
used properly
Members are provided with proper lab attire
and emergency safety equipment
Purchase, Store, Transport, and Use
Logistics
•
•
•
Christopher Short has a workshop that is
used for personal rocket projects that he has
volunteered for Project Nova
Chris is experienced with high powered
rocketry and the purchasing methods for
energetics
He will transport and store the materials
used in Project Nova
Test Sites
•
Locations
Phoenix Missile Works in Sylacauga, AL
o Southeast Alabama Rocketry Society in
Samson, AL
o
•
•
Team will abide by the safety regulations of
each club
Chris Short will inspect each rocket prior to
on site RSO evaluation
Hazard Briefing and Safety
Acknowledgement
•
•
•
All Team members will be briefed on
possible dangers and risks before working
Team will be taught to practice the proper
safety procedures and precautions that are
associated with high powered rockets
A Safety Acknowledgement form was
signed by all members stating they will
comply with proper safety procedures and
applicable local/state/federal laws
Emergency Procedures
•
Weather
o
•
Fire
o
•
In case of severe weather, the lab
and the halls outside of the lab are
designated shelter areas
All members have been briefed on the
evacuation procedures in case of fire
Injury
o
A first aid kit is brought on site and emergency
service contacts are kept on the lab door
Payload 1, SLS Technology
•
Requirements
Analysis of ground hazards
o On-board processing
o Real-time transmission
o
•
Justification
o
Sophistication and development of unmanned
technologies
Design
•
•
•
•
Camera – CPU interface
Data structures
Program analysis
Transmission to ground terminal
Redundancy
•
Separate from other electronics
•
Complete power redundancy
Payload 2, Boost Phase Analysis
•
Requirements
o
•
Structural and dynamic analysis of systems
during boost
Justification
Importance of engine characteristics
o Value of in-flight data
o Importance of boost-phase
o
Motor Analysis / Extrapolation
Electrical System
•
Risk to Electrical System
o
•
Incidental damage
Proposed Analysis
o
Accelerometer data
Payload
Requirement
Air-Frame Analysis
Propulsion
Analysis
Electrical Systems
Design Feature
Verification Method
Stain Gauges and Pressure
Transducers
Thermocouple at Nozzle
Computer-based Analysis
Electronics Bay Temp. &
Accelerometer
Computer-based Analysis
Computer-based Analysis
Payload 3, Environmental Effects
•
Requirements:
o
•
Analysis of Supersonic flight
on vehicle paint / coatings
The payload will determine the
suitability of NeverWet, a commercially
available waterproofing material, for
use in aerospace applications
Justification
•
•
Corrosion and Wing Icing are widespread,
expensive, and potentially dangerous
hazards facing the aerospace industry
A waterproofing material that can withstand
transonic effects could be suitable for use
on wing surfaces to prevent wing icing
o on spars and struts to prevent water based
corrosion
o
Procedure
•
•
•
NeverWet will be applied to the nose
cone of the rocket
A material that changes color when
wet will be applied under the coating
of NeverWet
Water will be applied before the flight
to ensure proper application and after
to determine if degradation of the
material occurred
Additional NeverWet Info
•
•
•
•
•
Aerosol Spray Application System with
separate base and top coats
Dry Heat Resistance is 230F
30 minutes until drying occurs (12
hours to full cure)
Care will need to be taken due to
flammability hazards
Skin contact and inhalation will be
avoided
Conclusion
•
Review
Design
• Safety
•
•
•
Moving Forward
Questions