University of Hawaii Community Colleges: Preliminary Design Review - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
University of Hawaii Community Colleges: Preliminary Design Review Team Summary Payload Criteria 6 Changes Since Proposal 32 Payload Summary Launch Vehicle Criteria 33 Chances Since Proposal 35-39 Payload Housing 9 Launch Vehicle
University of Hawai’i Community Colleges: Preliminary Design Review
2
Team Summary
6 Changes Since Proposal
Launch Vehicle Criteria
9 Launch Vehicle Summary 12-20 Selection, Design and Rationale 21 Recovery System
Mission Performance Payload Criteria
32 Payload Summary 33 Chances Since Proposal 35-39 Payload Housing 40-41 Payload Deployment 42-44 Rover Design 45-48 Soil Collection
Safety
3
Project Plan and Timelines
53 Changes Since Proposal 54-59 Project Plans 60-65 Derived Requirements 66-69 Funding and Budget 70-74 Timelines
STEM Engagement
Team Summary
4
Team Summary
University of Hawai’i Community Colleges
5
A collaborative effort that span across four campuses
Honolulu Community College, Windward Community College, Kapiolani Community College and University of Hawaii at Manoa Mentor: Dr. Jacob Hudson Team Lead: Katherine Bronston
6
Changes Made Since Proposal
Due to the start of a new school year, the student personnel attached to the team has encountered a few changes. Notable changes include the placement of Katherine Bronston as the UHCC SLP Team Lead and Rocket Team Lead. Another notable change in Leadership is the placement of Leomana Turalde as the team’s Safety
reassignments on the team have
summarized in the Organizational Chart depicted to the right.
Student Responsibility and Duties
The HonCC Team, otherwise known as the Payload team, is comprised of the students from Honolulu Community
7
HonCC Team: Payload WinCC Team: Rocket
The WinCC Team, otherwise known as the Rocket team, is comprised of the students from Windward Community College, Kapiolani Community College, and University of Hawai’i at Manoa. The team lead is Katherine Bronston.
Launch Vehicle
8
Launch Vehicle Summary
Length: Motor: 116 inches K1050W Weight: Main Chute 32.2 lbs Deployment: Mass: 500ft 1 slug (14.5 kg)
9
Target Altitude
10
Changes Made Since Proposal
Since the submission of our proposal, we have included the addition of a Y-invert Harness and Piston. Additionally, we have changed our target altitude to 4700 ft.
11
Selection, Design and Rationale
Selection, Justification and Rationale
Major Design Considerations
Moving forward with the design of the rocket, the team has determined that the size, length, and overall shape of the rocket will remain unchanged due to prior success with similar
prototypes for this rocket and have heavily influenced our design decisions. As such, our current design has come about from previous alternative designs and experiences with what works and what does not.
13
Selection, Design and Rationale Vehicle Body
14
Selection, Design and Rationale Avionics
15
Selection, Design and Rationale Vehicle Body
16
Selection, Design and Rationale Vehicle Body
17
Selection, Design and Rationale Vehicle Body
18
Variable Drag Assembly
Selection, Design and Rationale: Motor Justification
19 OpenRocket Pad Mass: 12.053 kg CP: 164 cm CG: 116 cm Motor Altitude vmax amax K1050W 1566 m190 m/s 109 m/s/s K700W 1359 m162 m/s 78.9 m/s/s K1275R 1258 m168 m/s 123 m/s/s K828FJ 1231 m160 m/s 96.1 m/s/s K1100X 1024 m147 m/s1 31 m/s/s RocSim 9.0 Pad Mass: 12.386 kg CP: 164 cm CG: 118 cm Motor Altitude vmax amax Aerotech Motors K1050W 5290.5 ft 608.1 ft/s 350.1 ft/s/s K700W 4451.5 ft 517.6 ft/s 249.9 ft/s/s K1275R 4124.1 ft 530.6 ft/s 386.6 ft/s/s K828FJ 4032.7 ft 509.6 ft/s 312.5 ft/s/s K1100T 2695.8 ft 415.7 ft/s 424.7 ft/s/s Cesseroni Motors K570 3793.0 ft 462.6 ft/s 216.1 ft/s/s K660 4982.9 ft 549.3 ft/s 258.1 ft/s/s K650-SS 2740.6 ft 402.6 ft/s 174.4 ft/s/s K1200WT 3861.6 ft 516.4 ft/s 346.9 ft/s/s K1440 5005.1 ft 606.5 ft/s 554.8 ft/s/s K500-RL 2340.6 ft 352.9 ft/s 137.3 ft/s/s K530-SS 1858.5 ft 317.9 ft/s 140.4 ft/s/s K590-DT 4918.7 ft 520.5 ft/s 455.0 ft/s/s K635-RL 3554.4 ft 452.6 ft/s 179.5 ft/s/s K750-RL 4719.4 ft 547.9 ft/s 228.7 ft/s/s K2045-Vmax 2241.5 ft 391.4 ft/s 610.5 ft/s/s L730 5999.2 ft 613.5 ft/s 288.0 ft/s/s L1030-R 6114.4 ft 661.9 ft/s 369.9 ft/s/s K1720-ST 1540.0 ft 316.2 ft/s 519.1 ft/s/s
Selection, Design and Rationale Motor Justification
20
Current Motor Selection: K1050W
Recovery System
Recovery System
Parachute Choices
22
Calculations determined parachutes should be at least:
RocketMan and Public Missiles parachutes were considered.
Main Chute RocketMan 12’ Drogue Chute RocketMan 5’
23
Calculations and predictions of the outcome of our launch
Mission Performance Predictions
Stability Margin
▪ CP - 96.3 in below the nose cone ▪ CG - 68.4 in below the nose cone ▪ CP and CG are 27.9 in apart Without Payload (CG is 80.5” in below the nose cone)
24
Selection, Design and Rationale
25
Thrust to Weight Ratio: Rail Exit Velocity: 75.5 ft/s
Mission Performance Predictions
Kinetic Energy
26
Kinetic energy incurred by the sections at landing
27
Mission Performance Predictions
28
Descent Time
For the descent time, the team is assuming that the rocket will deploy its drogue chute at apogee (4700 feet) and the rocket will descend at 75 feet/s to 500 feet where the main chute will then be deployed. Thereafter, the rocket will descend at 15 feet/s. Based
determine that the time on drogue is 56 sec and 33.3 sec under main, giving the team a total descent time
Mission Performance Predictions
29
Wind Velocity (ft/sec) Wind Velocity (mph)
DOptimistic(ft) DPessimistic(ft)
7.33 5 394 655 14.6 10 788 1304 22 15 1189 1965 29.3 20 1582 2617 Wind Speed (ft/sec) Simulated Drift (ft) 3- 7.33 214 7.33-14.6 1010 14.6-22 1263 22-29.3 2323
Drift Calculations
30
Payload
31
Payload Summary
32
Length: 5 inches Width: 3 inches : Height: 2.6 inches
Changes Made Since Proposal
33
Payload Housing Since the addition of a Y-invert Harness and Piston, we are looking into a fixated rail system that will eject the rover. Additional checks have been added to test for reliability and consistency Payload Planning
34
Selection, Design, and Rationale Payload Housing
Category Description Simplicity of Design Simplicity of mechanical components and electrical system required for the design Reliability Resistance to external flight factors Mission Success Projected success of design Mass Overall weight of subsystem and the effect on the payload Affordability Cost efficiency of design
Payload Housing Category Table
35
Selection, Design, and Rationale Payload Housing
Due to the above factors and rationale in the Housing Trade Study, Upright Rail Landing was chosen for payload housing.
36
Selection, Design, and Rationale Payload Housing
37
Selection, Design, and Rationale Payload Housing
38
Selection, Design, and Rationale Payload Housing
39
Selection, Design, and Rationale Payload Housing
40
Category Description Outdoor RF/Line of Sight Up to 3200 meters Size through-hole: 2.438 x 2.761 cm (0.960 x 1.087 in) surface-mount: 2.199 x 3.4 x 0.305 cm (0.866 x 1.33 x 0.120 in) Frequency Band ISM 2.4-2.5GHz Operating Power 2.7 - 3.6 V; 120 mA @ +3.3 V, +18 dBm
XBee Pro Zigbee The XBee Pro Zigbee will allow for easy communication for activation of the payload. This component has a range of up to 3200 meters, runs on 3.3V and is 0.866” x 1.33” x 0.120”. The main selling points of this component is it’s minimal size and weight.
Selection, Design, and Rationale Payload Deployment
41
Selection, Design, and Rationale Payload Deployment
Upon ensuring the rocket has landed via visual confirmation, the UHCC team will initiate the deployment protocol that will cause the motor to turn on and move from the retention phase to the ejection phase.
42
Selection, Design, and Rationale Rover Chassis
A commercial, aluminum chassis will be purchased and modified to suit the UHCC team’s specific requirements.
Rover Chassis Design
Rover Development and Design Rover Code Flow Chart
43
Rover Development and Design OBC
44
The team intends to use the Arduino Mega 2560
Selection, Design, and Rationale Soil Collection Method
45
Selection, Design, and Rationale Soil Collection Method
46
Based on the trade study, the Spring-Loaded Punch design was selected. With a height constraint of 2.6 inches, the main consideration is the ability to integrate with the rover and payload section, resulting in this category being 30% of our decision.
Soil Collection Trade Study Table
Soil Sample Recovery
Spring-Loaded Punch Design
47
Spring-Loaded Punch Design
Selection, Design, and Rationale Soil Sample Verification
48
Safety
49
Safety
Failure Mode and Hazards Analysis
50
Risk assessment table Severity
Complete loss
damage of launch vehicle Minor damage to launch vehicle, severe deviation from flight plan, loss
Deviation from flight plan, small loss of payload data Minor deviations from flight plan, discrepancies in data
4 3 2 1 Likelihood 60%-100% 4 40%-60% 3 20%-40% 2 5 1 1 1 0%-20% 1 7 1 1
Safety
Personnel Hazards Analysis
▪ General Safety Concerns and Mitigation ▪ Chemical Risks and Mitigation ▪ Tool/Equipment Risks and Mitigation ▪ Composites Safety Risks and Mitigation ▪ Safety Codes
51
Project Plan and Timelines
52
Changes Made Since Proposal
Timeline Adjustments
53
Along with the change in student responsibility in the organizational chart, there has been some minor changes to the timeline depicted above.
Project Plan
Project Plan
Project Requirements Plan
to specific team members
55
Project Plan
Vehicle Requirements Plan
▪ Design verified to satisfy the SLP Project Vehicle Requirements ▪ Target Altitude identified
▪ Subscale Construction & Testing ▪ Vehicle Demonstration Flight
▪ Creation of pre-flight checklist ▪ Motor Selection
56
Project Plan
Recovery Requirements Plan
▪ Design of recovery system verified to satisfy SLP Project Recovery Requirements ▪ Main Chute Deployment
▪ Descent Time
▪ Protection of Avionics Section
57
Project Plan
Payload Requirements Plan
▪ Payload design verified to satisfy SLP Deployable Rover Requirements ▪ Rover Retention
▪ Rover Deployment
▪ Rover Automation ▪ Soil Collection
▪ Protection of Batteries
58
Project Plan
Safety Requirements Plan
▪ Launch and Safety Checklist ▪ Safety Officers identified
▪ Adherence to NAR and TRA Safety Codes ▪ Range Safety Officer (RSO)
59
Project Plan Derived Requirements
Vehicle 1
▪ Derived Requirement:
▪ Cause:
damage to the fins. The necessary shipping method to prevent most of this damage would be exorbitant, well
▪ Mitigation:
can be removed and reinstalled from the vehicle without further deconstruction of the vehicle. The current vehicle design calls for a fin can with aluminum fins that can be removed and reinstalled. ▪
60
Project Plan Derived Requirements
Vehicle 2
▪ Derived Requirement:
thrust of around 1100N ▪ Cause:
motors with an average thrust of around 1100N delivered the rocket to its target altitude. ▪ Mitigation:
motor, which has an average thrust of 1132.9 N. ▪
61
Project Plan Derived Requirements
Recovery 1
▪ Derived Requirement:
to the ground. ▪ Cause:
forward section must maintain a horizontal orientation during descent and landing. ▪ Mitigation:
y-invert harness to deploy the parachute. This harness is being designed by the Vehicle Engineers. The design will be tested during the subscale tests. ▪
62
Project Plan Derived Requirements
Payload 1
▪ Derived Requirement:
8lbs. ▪ Cause:
payload weight. ▪ Mitigation:
a total of 8lbs by weighing it. ▪
63
Project Plan Derived Requirements
Payload 2
▪ Derived Requirement:
during take-off and 10Gs during deployment. ▪ Cause:
10Gs during deployment. ▪ Mitigation:
G-Forces put on it at launch deployment with a drop test from 19.7cm, thereby simulating take-off and deployment conditions.
64
Project Plan Derived Requirements
Payload 3
▪ Derived Requirement:
recovery system maximum size cannot exceed:
▪ Cause:
designs impose a maximum size limit of the rover and soil sample recovery system. ▪ Mitigation:
maximum size by measuring it.
65
Funding and Budget
Funding and Budget
Funding Sources
▪ Hawai’i Space Grant Consortium ▪ ‘IKE/PEEC II Grant
minorities in STEM
67
Funding and Budget
Budget & Material Acquisition Plan (for Vehicle)
▪ Vendors
▪ Total Vehicle Material Expenses: $1580
68
Funding and Budget
Budget & Material Acquisition Plan (for Payload)
▪ Vendors
▪ Total Payload Material Expenses: $478
69
Timelines
Timelines
Timeline for Vehicle
71
Timelines
Timeline for Payload
72
Timelines
Timeline for Team Targets
73
Timelines
74
Overall Timeline
STEM Engagement
75
76
“Educational outreach and the possibilities of students utilizing various aspects of rocketry, its dynamics, and motion to arrive at a broader interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), is a very important goal to be met by the UHCC team.”
STEM Engagement
Students visiting the Center for Aerospace Education at WCC The CAE has many models, replicas, tools, and educational toys and games that help teach scientific concepts and provide a tangible connection to the history of science.
77
UHCC Team Showcasing STEM to the Community at the Ho'olaule'a festival The UHCC team is dedicated to promoting STEM within the community, and we plan to continue outreach at schools and community events.
STEM Engagement
We expect to reach over 250 students by mid-February and will continue to work beyond the minimum engagement
experiences so far, we are also working to create handouts and brochures that would be given to various schools around O’ahu. These handouts would include questions related to the topics covered as part of our STEM engagement activities, with the intent to encourage curiosity and reflection in students.
2018 Timeline
10/25: Kailua Baptist Elementary School (36 students) 11/3: Haunted Holmes open-house at UHM (70 students) 11/16: Myron B. Thompson Academy (40 students) 12/6 Wilson Elementary School (100 students) 12/7: Pohakea Elementary School (30 students)
78