Critical Design Review University of Alabama in Huntsville January - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NASA USLI 2020

Critical Design Review

University of Alabama in Huntsville January 23rd, 2019

1

Presentation Agenda

• Introduction - Charger Rocket Works (CRW) Team,

Project Overview

• Vehicle - CONOPs, Component Design Overview,

Recovery System Overview, Mass Estimation, Flight Profile, Subscale Launch Report, Test Plans

• Payload - Design Overview, Mass Information,

Electrical Information

• Safety - Test Safety Procedures, Hazard Analysis, Safety

Verifications/Manual/Briefings

• Management - Schedule, Status of Requirements

Verification, Budget Updates, Outreach Updates

• Questions

2 Introduction - Nick Roman

2019-2020 CRW Team

3

Team Detail

• 20 Students participating as

part of UAH Senior Rocket Design Course

○

8 Mechanical Engineers

○

12 Aerospace Engineers

• 3 Students with prior rocketry

experience through NAR Level Certifications To give students an opportunity to gain experience with high-powered rocketry via the year-long system life cycle and share the knowledge gained with NASA and those in our communities through outreach programs.

Mission Statement

Introduction - Nick Roman

2019-2020 CRW USLI Subscale Launch

Project Overview

CRW will complete the following mission objectives according to requirements set forth by NASA and CRW derived requirements.

4

• CRW has designed and will manufacture a launch vehicle capable of:

○ Launching and carrying payload safely to 4500 ft. Above Ground Level (AGL) ○ Descending via drogue parachute until 600 ft. AGL where main parachute and payload will leave body tube ○ Upon touchdown Payload will detach and complete mission

• CRW has designed and will manufacture a manually operated rover capable of:

○ Safely leaving body tube at 600 ft. AGL ○ Detaching from recovery harness after landing ○ Traversing the launch field to an objective zone ○ Gathering at least 10 ml of simulated ice ○ Retreating at least 10 ft. away from the objective zone after collection

Introduction - Nick Roman

Project Overview (Cont.)

• Vehicle:

○

Length 135” Diameter 6.17” Weight 55.8 lbs. (loaded w/ payload)

• Payload:

○

Length 15.75” Width 4.5” Height 3.875” Weight 9 lbs.

• Budget:

○

Current Expenditures: $2,504.48

○

Current Projected Cost: $5932.00

○

Total Expected Funding: $8,448.83

• Schedule:

○

Schedule is progressing as planned

○

Next Milestone is first Full Scale flight on Jan 18th, 2020

• Requirements & Verifications:

○

CRW Derived Requirements are 14% Compliant

○

NASA Requirements are 19% Compliant

• CDR Key Accomplishments:

○

Final Design has been completed and modeled

○

Testing plans are in place for requirement verification

○

SOP’s are in place for Black Powder and Subscale and Full Scale

5 Introduction - Nick Roman

6

Vehicle

Sub-Team Lead: Peter Martin Safety Deputy: Maggie Hockensmith

Concept of Operations

7 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Vehicle Changes Since PDR

• Payload retention and deployment system entirely redesigned to include retention

cage

• Main parachute increased in size from Fruity Chutes IFC-96 inch to Fruity Chutes

IFC 144 inch so cut costs, with 144 inch chute already on hand.

• Drogue parachute downsized from Fruity Chutes CFC-24 inch to Fruity Chutes

CFC-18 inch to increase descent velocity under drogue to meet flight time requirements with larger main parachute.

• Giant Leap Rocketry Slider added to main parachute to mitigate increased shock

force from larger main parachute

• Thrust plate and aft centering ring combined into one unit that will be machined in

house

8 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Vehicle Characteristics

• Total Vehicle Length

○ 135 inch

• Body Diameter

○ 6 inch

• Nose Cone

○ 24 inch

• Upper Airframe

○ 60 inch

• Lower Airframe

○ 48 inch

• Coupler with Cage Assembly

○ 32 inch

• Launch weight

○ 55 lbm

9 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

• Motor

○ AeroTech L2200G

• Static Stability

○ 2.4 caliber

• Velocity off rail

○ 73 ft/sec

• Apogee

○ 4500 feet AGL

• Drogue Parachute Deployment

○ at apogee

• Main Parachute Deployment

○ 600 feet AGL

• Kinetic Energy at Landing

○ 39.1 lbf

Vehicle CAD Model

Launch Vehicle Mass Budget

10

Sub-Assembly Mass (lbm)

Lower Airframe 17.2 Fin Assembly 3.5 Coupler and Avionics 5.9 Retention Cage and Upper Airframe 10.4 Nose Cone and Tracking Assembly 3.47 Drogue Parachute Assembly 1.52 Main Parachute Assembly 4.78 Payload 9 Total 55.8

Percentage of Mass Per Sub-Assembly

Vehicle- Jacob Zilke

Overview:

• 24 inch 4:1 Ogive nose cone
• 60 inch upper airframe body tube length
• G12 Fiberglass
• Major inner diameter of 6 inch
• Houses main parachute and payload
• Tracker housed in nose cone

Upper Airframe Overview

11 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Upper Airframe Diagram Tracker 3.875 in Shoulder Shock Cord Main Parachute Nose Cone Bulkhead 4:1 Ogive Nose Cone Coupler/Payload

Coupler/Payload Retention Overview

Overview:

• 18 inch payload bay
• 14 inch coupler length
• Major outer diameter of 5.98 inch
• Houses payload bay and avionics sled
• ⅜ x 11/16-inch eye bolts
• ¼ -20 threaded rods

12

Payload Bay Forward Bulkhead Payload Switch Band AV Sled Forward Coupler Bulkhead Aft Coupler Bulkhead

Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Payload Retention System

Coupler Overview

• Four terminal blocks for redundant drogue and main parachute deployment

charges

• Key switches on switch band for redundant altimeters
• Four 0.404 inch diameter static reference ports on switch band
• Two ABS 3D printed charge wells on aft bulkhead for drogue deployment charges

13

Charge Well Switch Band Terminal Block Key Switch

Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Overview:

• 48 inch lower airframe length
• Major inner diameter of 6 inch
• Houses drogue parachute and motor
• 4 fins mounted with individual 3D printed brackets
• Screw on aft motor retentainer with machined aluminum thrust plate

Lower Airframe Overview

14 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Lower Airframe Diagram Drogue Parachute Motor Case Rail Button Motor Retention Fin Bracket Bulkhead Centering Ring Shock Cord

Lower Airframe Bulkhead

Design:

• Lower airframe attachment point for

recovery harness

• Machined from ⅜ inch thick 6061-T6

aluminum plate

• Attached to body tube with four #8-32

screws Structural Analysis:

• 500 lb load applied at center eye bolt hole
• Constrained at airframe mount holes
• Yield stress of 40 ksi
• Maximum Von Mises Stress

○

24.7 ksi

○

Located at eye bolt hole

15

Lower Airframe Bulkhead

Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Lower Airframe Bulkhead FEA

Centering Ring

• Keeps motor case aligned parallel to

airframe

• Machined from ⅜ inch thick

aluminum plate

• Attached to body tube with four #8-32

screws

• Holes machined for weight reduction

16

Centering Ring

Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Motor Retention

17 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Motor Retention Assembly

Retentianer Ring Retainer Thrust Plate Thrust Plate:

• Machined in-house
• Eliminates need for separate aft

centering ring

• Simplifies assembly
• Transfers thrust load to body

tube

• Attaches to body tube with four

#8-32 screws Retainer:

• Aeropack flanged 75 mm

retainer

• Attaches to thrust plate with

twelve #6-32 screws

• Transfers thrust to thrust plate
• Retainer ring holds motor after

burnout

• Material

○ Aluminum 6061-T6 ○ Yield Stress of 40 ksi

• Loading

○ Constrained at airframe mount holes ○ Boost ■ Compression load of 1050 lbf ■ Safety factor of 1.5 ■ Max stress 35 ksi ○ Coast/Descent ■ Tensile load of 500 lbf ■ Max stress 18.5 ksi

Thrust Plate FEA

18 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Thrust Plate Boost FEA Thrust Plate Coast/Descent FEA

Payload Retention System

19 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

• Forward Bulkhead

○ OD 5.77 inch ○ Thickness is 0.25 inch ○ 6061-T6 Aluminum ○ Hole OD 1.5 inch

• Aft Bulkhead

○ OD 5.9 inch ○ Thickness is 0.25 inch ○ 6061-T6 Aluminum

• Cage Information:

○ Height is 18.25 inch ○ Mass is 2.58 lbm ○ Fabricate in House ○ Located in the Upper Airframe

• 6061-T6 Aluminum

○ Yield Stress is 40 ksi ○ Density is 168.6 lbm/ft3

• Cage Bars

○ 0.25” x 1” x 18” ○ 6061-T6 Aluminum ○ 3 Bars Total

Cage Aft Bulkhead FEA

20

• Von Mises Stress

○ Used to determine if a material will yield

• r fail

○ Good representation of the magnitude of stress on a material

• FEA Analysis

○ Tetrahedral Mesh applied ○ Mesh Size is 0.497 inches ○ Force applied on center hole ○ Due to parachute shock load ○ FEA ran at 900 lbf ○ Actual shock load estimated to be 714 lbf at a Factor of Safety of 1.5

• FEA Results

○ Max Von Mises is 48.1 ksi due to Hot Spot ○ True value is 1 Element from Hot Spot location ○ Actual Max Von Mises is ≅ 32.1 ksi ○ Structural Safety compared to Factor of Safety is 1.25 Fixed Constraints Applied Force

Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Payload Retention System FEA

21

• Boost Phase

○ Max force applied is 39.6 lbf from Axial Load ■ Due to max acceleration of 12.07 G’s and mass of main parachute and accompanying equipment at a mass of 3.28lbm. ○ Max Von Mises stress at constrained holes ■ Max is 20 ksi due to Hot Spots ■ True value is 1 Element from Hot Spot location ■ Actual Max Von Mises is ≅ 9 ksi ■ Structural Safety compared to Factor of Safety is 4.44

• Main Parachute Deployment

○ Max Von Mises stress is from Lateral Load ■ Due to deployment of main with parachute slider and mass of the vehicle and coupler section of 15.66 lbm ■ Max is 30 ksi due to Hot Spots ■ Actual Max Von Mises is ≅ 20 ksi ■ Structural Safety compared to Factor of Safety is 2

Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Fins:

• Cut from 0.125 inch G-10 fiberglass sheet
• Fabricated in-house
• Fixed to bracket with four Chicago screws
• Dimensions determined by OpenRocket for
• ptimal flight

Brackets:

• Fastened to the body tube using eight #8-32

screws.

• 3D printed out of ABS plastic

Nut Plate:

• Connect the bracket to the body tube using

eight nuts

• 3D printed out of ABS plastic

Fin Assembly Design

22

Fin Assembly

Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Fin & Fin Bracket FEA

Landing at an angle:

• Max Von Mises Stress:

○

22.1 ksi

• Max Displacement:

○

0.0019 inch

23

Landing on tip:

• Max Von Mises Stress:

○

57.8 ksi

• Max Displacement:

○

0.004 inch

Load Applied at 45° Angle Vertical Load Applied

Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Avionics Overview

Avionics:

• Two redundant PerfectFlite Stratologger CF altimeters with discrete power supplies
• Two terminal blocks for quick connection of deployment charges to Stratologger CF

altimeters

• Redundant ABS 3D printed wells on aft bulkhead for drogue deployment - redundant

charge 115% size of original charge

• Black powder charge size estimate for drogue parachute 1.208 grams and main

parachute 3.345 grams

Vehicle - Ben Lucke 24

Avionics Sled Avionics Wiring Diagram

Altimeter Avionics Sled Battery Holder

Tracking

Tracking:

• CRW-developed tracker made with XBee-Pro S3B radio and Antenova GPS

mounted on 3D printed sled

• Transmission distance up to 6 miles, transmission power of 250mW
• Powered by CR123 3V Lithium Battery
• Housed in nose cone, operates independently of main avionics
• Transmission frequency between 902 and 928 MHz

25

Tracker with Antenna

Vehicle - Ben Lucke

Tracker Assembly Model

Recovery System

26

• Drogue:
• Deploys at apogee of 4500 feet above ground level, backup +1 second
• Fruity Chutes CFC-18 Classical Elliptical (CD = 1.5)
• Recovery Harness: Tubular Nylon 1 inch - 30 feet
• Terminal Velocity: 127.33 ft/s
• Main:
• Deploys at 600 feet above ground level, backup 550 feet
• Fruity Chutes IFC-144 Iris Ultra (CD = 2.2)
• Recovery Harness: Tubular Nylon 1 inch - 60 feet
• Terminal Velocity: 13.28 ft/s
• “Slider” used to reduce shock force

CFC-18” Drouge IFC-144” Iris Ultra Main

Vehicle - Ben Lucke

Kinetic Energy Calculation

Kinetic Energy Analysis:

• Requirement to keep KE under 75 ft-lbf for each independent section at landing
• Lower Airframe hits ground first, reducing effective weight for succeeding

sections, including the payload

• Terminal velocity of vehicle at landing is 13.28 ft/s

27

Body Section Mass (lbm) Kinetic Energy at Touch Down (ft-lbf) Upper Airframe 11.92 32.6 Lower Airframe 14.28 39.1 Payload 9.00 24.6 Coupler and Retention 6.875 18.8

Vehicle - Ben Lucke

Descent Time Calculations

Descent Time Analysis:

• Requirement to keep the descent time of the recovery from apogee to launch under

90 seconds

• Descent time influenced velocity of the vehicle under each parachute due to sizing
• f the parachutes
• With addition of slider to main parachute, extra inflation time added for main

parachute

28

Parachute Total Descent Time (seconds) Drogue Parachute 30.6 Main Parachute 42.2 Total Descent Time 72.8

Vehicle - Ben Lucke

Giant Leap Rocketry Slider

Giant Leap Rocketry Slider:

• Parachutes generates shock force on the vehicle due to the almost instantaneous

inflation of the parachute at deployment

• Main parachute inflation shock force high due to size of the parachute, and could

damage the coupler and retention system

• Slider helps to increase inflation time of main parachute so that the inflation shock

force is decreased (parachute gradually opens instead of opening instantaneously)

29

Giant Leap Rocketry Slider Slider in Action

Vehicle - Ben Lucke

Inflation Shock Force Calculations

30

Parameter (SF of 1.5) Main Without Slider Main with Slider Inflation Time (seconds) 0.756 1.513 Max Shock Force (lbf) 3168 1792 Shock Force Coupler/Cage (lbf) 1430 809 Shock Force Upper Airframe (lbf) 751 425 Shock Force Payload (lbf) 567 321

Vehicle - Ben Lucke

Drift Calculations

Vehicle - Roman Benetti 31

Drift Analysis Assumptions:

• Apogee is over

launch rail

• Horizontal wind

speed is constant and unidirectional

• Max drift with 20

MPH wind is 1435 feet

Selected Motor

Aerotech L2200G

Hardware RMS-75/5120 Single-Use/Reload/Hybrid Reloadable Total Impulse (lbf*s)/(N*s) 1147/5104 Propellant Weight (lbm) 5.55 Loaded Weight (lbm) 10.54 Weight After Burnout (lbm) 4.99 Maximum Thrust (lbf) 697 Average Thrust (lbf) 495 Burn Time (s) 2.3

Vehicle - Roman Benetti 32

Flight Profile

Profile:

• Maximum Speed: 588 ft/s
• Rail Exit Velocity: 73 ft/s
• Maximum Acceleration:

383 ft/s2, 11.9 g’s

• Thrust/Weight Ratio: 8.87
• Apogee: 4577 feet
• Time to Apogee: 17.0 s

Vehicle - Roman Benetti 33

Static Margin Diagram

Vehicle - Roman Benetti 34

Stability:

• Static margin of 2.4
• Calculated using average weather and launch day conditions
• Average wind speeds of 5-6 MPH
• Rail length 12 feet, effective length 103 inches

Subscale Launch Report

• Two launches conducted on November 9th
• All team members participated in rocket manufacturing and launch
• Accurate ½ scale of full size rocket replication the drag coefficient

35

Subscale Rocket CAD Model

Vehicle - Roman Benetti

Subscale Flight Data #1

• First Flight
• Max Height: 598 feet
• Max Speed: 320 ft/s
• One hundred feet lower

apogee than expected, indicates drag force is higher on actual rocket than simulations show

36 Vehicle - Roman Benetti

Subscale Flight Data #2

• Second Flight
• Max Height: 1752 feet
• Max Speed: 460 ft/s
• Several hundred feet lower

apogee than expected, indicates drag force is higher on actual rocket than simulations show

37 Vehicle - Roman Benetti

Subscale Drag Calculations

• Actual flight data plotted against

simulation, changing Cd value

• Closest simulation to match actual

data used for Cd value

• Cd value = 1.0
• Cd value found from subscale data is

used to help aid full scale simulations

38 Vehicle - Roman Benetti

Subscale Lessons Learned

• OpenRocket calculates “stability off the rail”

differently than how NASA rules have been interpreted; new “stability off the rail” value is static stability margin.

• Stronger Fin Mounting method required. Will be

resolved by securing bracket with flat head screws and adding a nut plate to the inside of the rocket.

• Rocket drag was higher than anticipated. Measured

Cd value will be used for further flight path calculations.

• Accurate mass predictions necessary before sizing

parachutes and fins. Low mass estimate with respect to actual launch mass resulted in severely undersized parachutes and the rocket being highly overstable before modification

39 Vehicle - Roman Benetti

Unbonded Fin Bracket

Vehicle Test Plan

40

Test Purpose Procedure Desired Outcome

Full and Sub Scale Recovery System Deployment Test Verify the black powder charges reliably fire and are powerful enough to deploy the parachutes Pack the rocket as it be for flight and manually detonate the separation charges The black powder charges will successfully separate the vehicle and eject the parachutes Tracking Test Verify that the tracker is functioning and determine the usable range With the tracker in the nose cone, continually move further from the transmitter until the signal is lost The tracker accurately relays the rockets position and has a useable range of over 2,500 ft Bulkhead Strength Test Verify the bulkheads connected to the recovery harness are strong enough to withstand the required forces Determine the highest force that will be experienced and replicate the force using weights The bulkheads will remain firmly mounted in the vehicle and have sustained minimal damage Avionics Standby Test Verify that the avionics will be capable

• f remaining on the launch pad for over

two hours without draining their batteries Power on the altimeters with new batteries and record the time needed to deplete the batteries The altimeters will still be functional after two hours of standby Payload Retention System Test Verify the payload retention system properly constrains the payloads motion within the launch vehicle Apply simulated load to cage experienced at takeoff and drogue deployment to verify strength of cage The payload will remain retained during application of all flight forces and reliably release from retention when deployed Vehicle - Roman Benetti

Vehicle Test Plan

41

Test Purpose Procedure Desired Outcome

Subscale Test Flight Collect flight data and verify the accuracy of simulations Launch and recover subscale launch vehicle and compare flight data to simulation profiles The flight profile of the actual subscale rocket will closely match the profile created by simulations Full Scale Demonstration Flight Verify that the vehicle is fully

• perational and reliable before

loading in the payload Launch and recover the complete launch vehicle with a simulated mass in place of the payload The full-scale rocket will perform as designed, be recovered with minimal damage, and be able to be reused with the actual payload Full Scale Payload Demonstration Flight Verify that the entire system works as designed Launch and recover the vehicle and payload as it will operate on competition day All systems will operate successfully, the vehicle and payload are recovered with minimal damage, and they are able to be reused Fin Assembly Strength Test Verify that the fins and fin brackets are strong enough to withstand the forces experienced during flight Determine the highest load the fin assembly will experience during flight and replicate it using weights The fins and fin brackets will have sustained minimal damage and remain securely attached to the body of the rocket

Electronic Interference Verify the altimeters perform correctly and do not exhibit any signs of electrical interference While mounted in the avionics bay, subject the altimeters to an RF source and monitor the

• utput signals

The altimeters will be sufficiently shielded from interference by the avionics bay and operate as intended

Vehicle - Roman Benetti

Full Scale Vehicle Status

In Progress

• Component and material acquisition
• Fabrication/Machining of components in house
• Vehicle assembly
• Optimize assembly processes

Completed

• Subscale flight data analysis
• Full CAD model of all components
• Structural analysis of all load bearing components
• Updated flight profile simulations

Moving Forward

• Structural component testing
• Tracking & recovery system testing
• Energetics testing
• Full-scale launch (minus payload) on January 17th
• Full-scale launch with payload on February 22nd

42 Vehicle - Roman Benetti

Payload

Lead: James Venters Safety Deputy: Claudia Hyder

43

Payload Concept of Operations Diagram

44 Payload - Joseph Agnew

Payload Changes since PDR:

• Rover lengthened 3.5 inch to a total length of 15.5 inch
• Battery retention added
• Switched from Pixracer to RC receiver
• Payload will be on main parachute recovery harness
• 6061-T6 Aluminum will be used as the standard construction material due to

low cost, high availability, and good strength properties

• FEA analysis done on estimated impact load based on maximum kinetic energy

Overview of the Rover in CAD

45

Exploded View

Payload - Joseph Agnew

Isometric View

Chassis Plate

46

Design Specifics:

• ¼ inch 6061-T6 Aluminum Plate. All holes tapped

#4-40 UNC threads

• Will be machined with a mill in UAH Machine shop
• Each track assembly will be attached with #4-40 UNC

screws on the side of the plate

• Hole in center of the plate to provide room for battery
• Holes to provide room for the motors

Payload - Joseph Agnew

Chassis Plate FEA Chassis Plate CAD Model H

• l

e f

• r

B a t t e r y H

• l

e s f

• r

D r i v e M

• t
• r

C l e a r a n c e

Battery Bracket FEA

47 Payload - Joseph Agnew

Battery Bracket CAD Model Battery Bracket FEA

Parameter Value Yield Stress of ABS Plastic 6.3 ksi Max Acceleration of Rocket 218 ft/s2 Weight of Battery 1.09 lbm Max Force on Battery 13.07 lbf Max Force on Battery with Factor of Safety of 2 26.14 lbf Max Stress 0.58 ksi Factor of Safety for Yield Stress 11

Design Specifics:

• 290 oz-in stall torque motors
• 1.5 in 45 deg. miter gears; 443 oz-in rating, Factor of Safety = 1.85
• ¼ - 20 UNC carriage bolts with standoffs prevent drive component pinching
• ⅜ in clevis pins to retain idler pulleys
• Teflon thrust bearings to reduce sliding friction
• ⅛ in Aluminum side plates for support
• Max ground speed: 0.86 mph
• 1 inch wide tracks provide over 20 in2 of track area, 0.43 psi ground pressure

Track Sub-Assembly

48

Exploded Tracks Schematic Isometric Track Sub-Assembly View

Payload - Joseph Agnew

Ninja Flex Tracks

Tracks:

• Tracks printed with NinjaFlex 85A material.
• NinjaFlex has 660% elongation, which allows for repeated movement and impact

without wear or cracking

• Abrasion resistance 20% better than ABS plastic.
• Full track print time was 16 hours
• Heat gun used to reshape tracks to a semi-circle
• Backup track plan in place to use double strand #35 roller chain

49

Track as Printed Reshaped Track

Payload - Joseph Agnew

Outrigger Sub-Assembly

Outriggers:

• Primary objective to keep payload from tipping on its side.
• Outrigger assembly on both sides of the payload.
• Outrigger arm is 4.95” long.
• Arm extends 95° to prevent the weight of the rover pushing arm back within

payload.

• Outrigger holding block, outrigger pivot block, and outrigger arm will be

machined out of 6061-T6 Aluminum.

50

Outrigger Sub-Assembly

Payload - Joseph Agnew

Full Assembly Outrigger Open

Sample Collection System

Sample Collection:

• Component: Mechanical Scoop
• Purpose: Recover and Secure

Simulated Lunar Ice

• Manufacture: 3D Printed with

ABS Plastic

• Controlled by: RC Micro Servo
• Servo Stall Torque: 8 oz-in
• Max Volume Containment: 20 mL

51

Rover with both Scoops Open Rover with Scoop Scoop’s Sub-assembly

Payload - Joseph Agnew

Payload Release

52 Payload - Joseph Agnew

Release Assembly:

Rover Release Assembly Rover Release FEA Results

• Release mechanism will be

manually controlled

• Servo will actuate the rack

gear to release a quick link attached to the main parachute recovery harness after the vehicle has landed

• FEA completed to ensure release mechanism

survives main parachute deployment

• Yield stress of 1018 carbon steel is 53.7 ksi
• Shock load of 300 lbf with a safety factor of

1.5

• Max von Mises stress of 33.2 ksi

Release Analysis:

Payload Release Concept of Operations

53 Payload - Joseph Agnew

Payload Mass Budget

54

Rover Components Mass (lbm) Electrical Components 2.09 Chassis 1.86 Scoop Systems 0.05 Track Systems 3.91 Outrigger Systems 0.14 Deployment Systems 0.12 Hardware 0.83 Total 9.00

Percentage of Mass Per Subsystem

Payload - Joseph Agnew

Rover Power Budget

55

Mission Leg Time (min) Power draw (W) Pad Standby 120.0 0.6 Flight 1.5 0.6 Driving to ice 36.0 74.6 Harvest ice 5.0 85.7 Drive away from ice 2.0 74.6 Total (hr) 2.7 Total Power Required (Wh) 55.5 Total Power with Safety Factor of 1.5 83.3

Percentage of Power Per Mission Leg

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Rover Block Diagram

56

Battery (LiPo 3s) Drive Motor Servos Motor Controller RC Receiver RC Transmitter Battery Monitor Legend 11.1 V Power line 5 V Power line Data line 2.4 Ghz Safety Switch Red Indicator LED Battery Eliminator Circuit (BEC) Drive Motor Motor Controller Green Indicator LED

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Rover Schematic

Rover Schematics:

• Drive System
• RC System

57

• Power Management
• Indicator and Switch
• Ice Collection and Payload Release

System

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Power System Schematic

Battery:

• 11.1V, 8000 mAh
• Hard-Case Lithium-Polymer

TGY-CVT01 Voltage Sensor:

• Measures battery cell voltage
• Connects to RC receiver

telemetry port

58

Battery and Voltage Sensor Schematic Battery Voltage Sensor

Battery Eliminator Circuit (BEC):

• Powers RC receiver and servos
• 8-40V input
• 5V, 5A output

BEC

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Drive System Schematic

Drive System:

• 12V DC motors
• Requires a minimum 5A motor controller
• RC control input
• Motors drive the rovers tracks

59

12V DC Motor Motor Controller Drive System Schematic

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Ice Collection and Payload Release System Schematic

Ice Collection System:

• Ice scoops are driven by two servos
• Servos are controlled via one of the RC

transmitter joysticks Payload Release System:

• Release servo is operated by one servo
• Servos is controlled with a switch on the RC

transmitter

60

Scoop and Release Servo Ice Collection System Schematic

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Switch and Indicator Schematic

Indicator and Switch:

• Limit switch (SPST) disables RC receiver

○

No drive motor control

○

No servo control

○

Disables control for safety

• 25 Watt max through the switch
• Red LED indicator illuminates when

motor controller is powered

• Green LED indicator illuminates when

RC receiver and servos are powered

61

Switch and Indicator Schematic LEDs Limit Switch

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

RC System Schematic

RC Receiver:

• 2.4 GHz
• 6 Channel
• Connects to the RC Transmitter
• Pulse Width Modulation (PWM)

signal to the motor controller and servos

• iBUS connection for battery level

telemetry

• Automatic Frequency Hopping

Digital System (AFHDS)

62

RC Receiver Schematic RC Receiver

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

RC System Transmitter

RC Transmitter:

• 2.4 GHz
• 6 -10 Channel support
• Automatic Frequency Hopping

Digital System (AFHDS)

• Supports iBUS telemetry
• Channel mixing for tank drive

63 Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

RC Transmitter

Rover Link Budget

64 Frequency (Mhz) Wavelength, λ (in) Transmit Power, PTX (dBm) TX Antenna Gain, GTX (dB) Maximum Free Space Loss, LFS (dB) Fade Margin, LM (dB) RX Antenna Gain, GRX (dB) Signal Strength at Receiver, PRX (dB) RX Sensitivity (dB) Max Range (miles) 2400 5.1 20 2

• 113
• 15

2

• 104
• 105

2.8

RC Transmitter Rover and RC Receiver

2.4 GHz

Max Range of 2.8 miles

• Maximum free space loss:
• Receiver Power:
• Minimum required telemetry range for operation: 25 feet
• Maximum telemetry estimated range: 2.8 miles
• Radio complies with 250mW max transmission power requirement

Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Payload Test Plan

65 Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Test Purpose Procedure Desired Outcome

Ejection Test Ensure payload is correctly ejected from cage Pull payload out of the cage using a spring scale Payload requires less force to come

• ut of cage than shock cord will exert

Drop/Impact Test Verify that payload will endure the force of landing Drop rover from height equivalent to kinetic energy force expected at landing No damage to the structure of the rover Endurance Test To test the maximum time the rover can operate Continuously drive the rover until the battery is depleted Travel distance covers at least half a mile Transmitter Range Test To test the range limits of the RC transmitter Move the payload away from the RC transmitter until the radio connection is lost RC transmitter remains connected to the rover’s RC receiver at a distance of at 25 feet

Payload Test Plan

66 Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

Test Purpose Procedure Desired Outcome

Ice Collection Test To test the payloads ability to collect ice Operate the payload scoops and collect simulated ice The payload scoops collect a minimum of 10 ml of simulated ice Ground Test To test the complete mission

• f the payload

Drive the payload a predetermined distance, collect ice, and drive away from the ice location Complete the entire mission outline within one hour and without power or telemetry loss Release Structural Test To test the structural integrity

• f the release mechanism

Apply the expected shock load to verify the rigidity of the release mechanism

The release mechanism will withstand the expected shock load from flight

Release Actuation Test

To test the functionality of the servo for the release mechanism Command the servo to open to the specified position to allow the payload to separate from the main parachute recovery harness The servo will move the gear rack to release the payload from the recovery harness

Payload Status

In Progress

• Component and material acquisition
• Fabrication of parts
• Rover sub-system prototyping
• Validation of design through testing plan
• Purchase orders

Completed

• Sub scale track testing
• CAD design
• Parts lists finalized

Moving Forward

• Part fabrication
• Rover assembly
• Testing

67 Payload - Johnathon Jacobs

CRW Rover

68

Safety

Lead: Jessy McIntosh Deputies: Maggie Hockensmith, Claudia Hyder

CDR Focus

Updated Personnel and Environmental Risk and Hazard Analyses

• Clarify vague or generalized hazards and causes
• Identify unique, project-specific hazards
• Leave less responsibility to the reader to imagine in what scenarios a

general hazard might apply.

• Provide solid means of verifying mitigations

Continued Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

• Continue to identify our specific design’s potential weaknesses
• Provide mitigations and preliminary verifications for newly identified

failure modes

• More Component Data Sheets providing failure modes for critical parts

Launch and Testing Standard Operating Procedures

• Hazard and warning statements
• PPE requirement statements
• Checked and signed verification system

69 Safety - Claudia Hyder

Updated Hazard Analysis Sample

Before: After:

70 Safety - Claudia Hyder

Safety Verification Plan

Training and testing with the intention of demonstrating that hazard mitigations requiring training and proper tool use are met. Future Safety Briefing dates to be determined to ensure Launch and Testing SOPs are covered.

71

Training/Testing Completion Date Outcome PRC Safety Test 8/29/2019 98.3% mean score, all passed CPR/AED/First Aid Training 10/25/2019 11 team members certified NAR Level 2 Rocketry Exam 11/26/2019 96.4% mean score, all passed Safety Manual and mandatory safety quiz In progress, 10/16/2020 Required 100% accuracy, retakes possible

Safety - Claudia Hyder

Safety Manual

• Provides quick safety reference for CRW team
• Provides verification for safety mitigations by collecting signed compliance with

SOPs and relevant regulations

• Compiles all relevant safety documents:

○

Emergency and evacuation plans

○

Applicable laws and regulations

○

Signed safety pledge

○

Risk assessments and probability matrices

○

Material Safety Data Sheets

○

Component Data Sheets and FMEA

○

Hazard analyses for personnel safety, tool use, chemical handling, and environmental safety

○

Operating procedures and PPE requirements for selected machining/power tools

72 Safety - Claudia Hyder

Safety Briefings

• Held to communicate all of the safety team’s findings in regard to risks, hazards,

and failure modes for testing and launches

• Intent on keeping everyone up to date with basic procedures/plan of action

for different scenarios that may warrant rapid action (fire, accidents, medical emergencies)

• Will serve as a preliminary introduction to the testing plans and standard operating

procedures

• Encourage every CRW team member to remain proactive, attentive, and

accountable for themselves and one another

• Held the night before or the morning of a launch or test event

○

General safety briefings will be held on a frequent basis as needed before manufacturing, tests, and launches.

73 Safety - Maggie Hockensmith

Launch Procedures Format

74

Applicable Documents

A comprehensive collection of all necessary hazard analysis tables, MSDS sheets, and component data sheets.

PRC Red Team and Sign Off Pages

Detailed information about participation, launch intentions and reasons, signed authorization by PRC

• fficials, CRW team
• fficials, and participating

members.

Procedures

Step by step detailed procedure of preparation, transportation, assembly, launch, collection, and cleaning of the rocket. Includes warning lines, checked and signed compliance, and documentation (weights, CP and CG, etc.).

Safety - Maggie Hockensmith

75

Basic Outline of Launch Procedure Order

Safety glasses in use from here

• n out. Preparation of

Electronics and payload. Packing of main parachute into the body tube Attachment of recovery harness to payload, coupler, and nose cone Insert payload into cage and attach to coupler Assembly of upper airframe with coupler, cage, and nose cone. Attachment of recovery harness and packing of drogue in the lower airframe Attachment of lower airframe to the assembled upper airframe. Nitrile gloves: black powder charge insertion, Motor preparation, launch pad steps, launch, rocket recovery, post launch procedures

• SOP portion for packing and preparation

completed before reaching the launch field and starting on the launch procedures.

• During procedures team is aware of surroundings,

stopping to observe during each launch.

• Black powder handling done by class instructor /

mentor

• Motor installation done by mentor
• All steps checked, each section signed for step by

step assembly compliance.

Safety - Maggie Hockensmith

Launch Procedure Hazard Analysis Tables

• Many of the mitigations within the Launch Personnel hazard tables are cited

within the launch procedures

○

Improved distinction between “verifications” and “mitigations” to remove redundancy and overlap

• Hazard tables include:

○

Chemical Handling

○

Machine/Tool Use

○

Environment Hazards to System, System Hazards to Environment

○

Personnel Hazards for Launch

• Standard Operating Procedures include:

○

Improved hazard and warning statements

○

PPE requirement statements

76 Safety - Maggie Hockensmith

77

Management

Lead: Nick Roman

Schedule Overview

• Proposal, PDR, CDR, and Subscale have been completed
• Full scale Launch Date has occurred
• Spring schedule is complete

78 Management - Patrick Day

Projected Costs

79

Budget Summary: Totals: Subscale Vehicle $940.30 Full Scale Vehicle $3,236.41 Payload $725.55 Administration $256.00 Margin $733.55 Total $5,932.00 Total Expenditures as

• f 01/09/2020

$2,504.48

Management - Patrick Day

Projected Funding

80

Source: Totals: Residual USLI Funding: $2,044.00 ASGC Outreach Grant: $5,000.00 PRC Donation (National Geographic Support) $974.83 Total $8,018.83

Management - Patrick Day

• More funding sources being explored.
• Want to ensure financial security of this year’s team as well as contribute to the

sustainability of the team for next year.

Budget Timeline

81

• Black line represents PDR budget estimation.
• Dotted blue line represents current date.

Management - Patrick Day

Requirements Verification Methodology

• Both NASA and team derived requirements tracked in a shared spreadsheet.
• Derived requirements are added by team members as they encounter requirements

while working on the items within their expertise.

• Each requirement has a verification type and corresponding plan attached.

82

Requirement Number Description Justification Verification Type Verification Plan Verification Progress UAH-V-01 The vehicle shall reach an apogee of 4500 ± 250 ft To meet NASA-2.2, the team is required to identify their target altitude by PDR. The team has identified their target altitude as shown and tolerance in reaching it. Test Simulation of the flight based on the weight and thrust of the rocket motor will verify the apogee goal chosen. Calculated apogee shall be confirmed through test flights. In progress UAH-V-02 There shall be redundant, increasing black powder charges in the event of initial recovery system deployment failure. To meet NASA-2.7 in the event of deployment failure, increasingly powerful charges will be ignited to force deployment. Test The black powder charge system for deployment of the recovery will be designed to include two attempts…. Not Started

Example Requirements Tracking Tables

Management - Patrick Day

Not Started In Progress Waiting Compliant

Requirements Verification Status

• A verification plan has been outlined for all competition requirements and team

derived requirements

• Progress on requirement compliance is tracked using a spreadsheet
• Requirement verification progress in each phase is shown in the pie charts

83 Management - Patrick Day

Outreach Updates

84

Outreach Goal: 1000 individuals engaged Current Progress: 217 individuals engaged Past Events:

• Society of Women Engineers - First LEGO League Qualifier

○

Activity: Team assisted in hosting the event and interacted with students.

○

Individuals engaged: =100

• Hampton Cove Middle School - First LEGO League

○

Activity: Team assisted in hosting the event and interacted with students.

○

Individuals engaged: =97

• Rocketry Presentation - Gretna Middle School

○

Activity: Rocketry Basics Presentation

○

Individuals engaged: =20 Future Events:

• TBA: Bob Jones High School

○

Activity: Estes Rockets & Rocketry Basics Presentation.

• National Geographic Launch

○

Activity: Film full-scale launch for kids show “Weird but True”

Management - Patrick Day

Estes Launch Prep FLL CRW Display

Conclusion

• CRW is on track to meet critical program

deadlines and requirements

• CRW has completed 2 subscale launches

and have adhered to budget and schedule

• Upcoming Milestones are construction

and testing of rover and full scale rockets

• Full scale test launch on January 18th,

flight with payload on February 22nd.

85

Final Payload CAD Model Final Vehicle CAD Model

Management - Patrick Day

Questions

86

Thank you for your time, do you have any questions?

Management - Patrick Day

BACKUP

87

Requested Information

• Final launch vehicle and payload dimensions: 6
• Discuss key design features: 5, 6
• Final motor choice: 33
• Rocket flight stability in static margin diagram: 35
• Thrust-to-weight ratio and rail exit velocity: 34
• Mass Statement and mass margin: 11, 54
• Parachute sizes, recovery harness type, size, length, and descent rates: 27, 29
• Kinetic energy at key phases of the mission, especially landing: 28
• Predicted drift from the launch pad with 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-mph wind: 32
• Test plans and procedures: 41, 42, 65, 66
• Scale model flight test data: 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
• Tests of the staged recovery system: 41, 42
• Final payload design overview: 44, 45
• Payload integration plans: 44, 53
• Payload retention system: 20, 22
• Interfaces (internal within the launch vehicle and external to the ground): 8, 44, 53
• Status of requirements verification: 81, 82

88 Management - Patrick Day

CDR Schedule

89 Management - Patrick Day

Vehicle Team Introduction

90 Vehicle - Jacob Zilke

Vehicle Lead

Peter Martin

Simulations Roman Benetti Recovery

Jeremy Hart

Motor Retention

Jacob Zilke

Electronics

Ben Lucke

Fin Design

Rachel O’Kraski

Material

Rodney Luke

Top-Level Requirements:

• Vehicle shall reach an

apogee of 4500 ft within ± 250 ft

• Launch Vehicle will

accelerate to a minimum velocity of 52 ft/s off the rail

• Each independent section of

the launch vehicle will have a maximum kinetic energy

• f 75 lb-ft at landing

Status:

• Design finalized and fully modeled in CAD
• Structural analysis completed
• Manufacturing drawings completed
• Ready for manufacture and assembly