University of Hawaii Community Colleges: Preliminary Design Review - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

University of Hawai’i 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 Summary 40-41 Payload Deployment 12-20 Selection, Design and 42-44 Rover Design Rationale 45-48 Soil Collection 21 Recovery System Safety Mission Performance 2

“ 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 3

1. Team Summary 4

University of Hawai’i Community Colleges Team A collaborative effort that span across four campuses Summary Honolulu Community College, Windward Community College, Kapiolani Community College and University of Hawaii at Manoa Mentor: Dr. Jacob Hudson Team Lead: Katherine Bronston 5

Student Responsibility Changes and Duties Made Since Due to the start of a new school Proposal 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 Officer. In addition, other reassignments on the team have occured and have been summarized in the Organizational Chart depicted to the right. 6

HonCC Team: Payload WinCC Team: Rocket The HonCC Team, otherwise known as The WinCC Team, otherwise known as the Rocket team, is comprised of the students from the Payload team, is comprised of the Windward Community College, Kapiolani students from Honolulu Community Community College, and University of Hawai’i College. The team lead is Ryan Young. at Manoa. The team lead is Katherine Bronston. 7

2. Launch Vehicle 8

Length: Motor: Launch 116 inches K1050W Vehicle Summary Weight: Main Chute 32.2 lbs Deployment: 500ft Mass: 1 slug (14.5 kg) 9

4700 ft 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, Major Design Considerations Justification and Rationale 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 designs. Our previous successes have served as useful 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 Variable Drag Assembly Rationale Vehicle Body 18

Pad Mass: 12.053 kg CP: 164 cm CG: 116 cm OpenRocket Motor Altitude vmax amax K1050W 1566 m190 m/s 109 m/s/s Selection, K700W 1359 m162 m/s 78.9 m/s/s K1275R 1258 m168 m/s 123 m/s/s Design and K828FJ 1231 m160 m/s 96.1 m/s/s K1100X 1024 m147 m/s1 31 m/s/s Rationale: Pad Mass: 12.386 kg CP: 164 cm CG: 118 cm RocSim 9.0 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 Motor 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 Justification 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 19 K1720-ST 1540.0 ft 316.2 ft/s 519.1 ft/s/s

Selection, Design and Rationale Motor Justification Current Motor Selection: K1050W 20

Recovery System

Parachute Choices Recovery Calculations determined parachutes should be at least: System 10’8” (Main) ● 4’3” (Drogue) ● RocketMan and Public Missiles parachutes were considered. Main Chute Drogue Chute RocketMan 12’ RocketMan 5’ 22

Mission Performance Calculations and predictions of the outcome of our launch 23

Stability Margin Mission Performance CP - 96.3 in below the nose cone ▪ Predictions 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 Thrust to Weight Ratio: Rationale Rail Exit Velocity: 75.5 ft/s 25

Kinetic Energy Mission Performance Predictions 26

75 lb-ft Kinetic energy incurred by the sections at landing 27

Mission Descent Time Performance For the descent time, the team is assuming that the Predictions 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 on these values and the equation for distance, we can determine that the time on drogue is 56 sec and 33.3 sec under main, giving the team a total descent time of 89.3 sec. 28

Drift Calculations Mission Performance Wind Velocity (ft/sec) Wind Velocity (mph) D Optimistic (ft) D Pessimistic (ft) Predictions 0 0 0 0 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 29

30

3. Payload 31

Payload Length: Summary 5 inches Width: 3 inches : Height: 2.6 inches 32

Payload Planning Changes Made Since Proposal Additional checks have been added to test for reliability and consistency 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. 33

Selection, Payload Housing Category Table Design, and Rationale Category Description Simplicity of Design Simplicity of mechanical components and electrical system required for the design Reliability Resistance to external flight factors Payload Mission Success Projected success of design Housing Mass Overall weight of subsystem and the effect on the payload Affordability Cost efficiency of design 34

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. 35

Selection, Design, and Rationale 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, XBee Pro Zigbee Design, and The XBee Pro Zigbee will allow for easy communication for activation of the payload. This component has a range of up Rationale 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. Category Description Payload Outdoor RF/Line of Up to 3200 meters Deployment Sight 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 40

Upon ensuring the rocket has landed via visual confirmation, the UHCC Selection, team will initiate the deployment protocol that will cause the motor to Design, and turn on and move from the retention phase to the ejection phase. Rationale Payload Deployment 41

Rover Chassis Design Selection, Design, and Rationale Rover Chassis A commercial, aluminum chassis will be purchased and modified to suit the UHCC team’s specific requirements. 42

Rover Development and Design Rover Code Flow Chart 43

Rover Development and Design OBC The team intends to use the Arduino Mega 2560 44

Selection, Design, and Rationale Soil Collection Method 45

Soil Collection Trade Study Table Selection, Design, and Rationale Soil Collection Method 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. 46

Spring-Loaded Punch Design Soil Sample Recovery Spring-Loaded Punch Design 47

Selection, Design, and Rationale Soil Sample Verification 48

4. Safety 49