Fiu NSL PDR

NASA University Student Launch Initiative
2015-2016 Preliminary Design Report for MAV

FIU PantherWorks Space Team
November 6, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 7
Section 1: Summary of PDR Report ............................................................................................. 12
I.
Team Summary .................................................................................................................. 12
II.
Launch Vehicle Summary .............................................................................................. 12
III.
AGSE/Payload Summary ............................................................................................... 12
Section 2: Changes Made Since Proposal ..................................................................................... 13

I.
Vehicle Criteria Changes ................................................................................................... 13
II.
AGSE Criteria Changes.................................................................................................. 14
III.
Project Plan Changes ...................................................................................................... 14
Section 3: Vehicle Criteria ............................................................................................................ 15

I.
Launch Vehicle Design ...................................................................................................... 15

Mission Statement ................................................................................................................. 15
Mission Verification ............................................................................................................. 15
Mission Success Criteria ....................................................................................................... 16
Design of Launch Vehicle..................................................................................................... 16
Designs At a Systems Level.................................................................................................. 21
Launch Vehicle Verification ................................................................................................. 44
Critical Mass Statement ........................................................................................................ 48
Full Launch Vehicle Assembly ............................................................................................. 50
II.
Recovery Subsystem ...................................................................................................... 50

Parachute Selection Rationale............................................................................................... 50
Recovery Flight Path............................................................................................................. 51
Recovery System Components ............................................................................................. 52
Electrical Schematic.............................................................................................................. 56
Recovery System Verification .............................................................................................. 56
III.
AirBrake Subsystem ....................................................................................................... 59
PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 2
Subsystem Characteristics..................................................................................................... 60
System Components.............................................................................................................. 62
Aerodynamic Analysis .......................................................................................................... 73
Code Development................................................................................................................ 81
IV.
Mission Performance Predictions................................................................................... 88
Mission Performance Criteria ............................................................................................... 88

Launch Vehicle Characteristics Summary ............................................................................ 88
Motor Selection ..................................................................................................................... 89
Stability Analysis .................................................................................................................. 92
Flight Simulations ................................................................................................................. 93
Landing Analysis .................................................................................................................. 99
V.
Interfaces and Integration ............................................................................................. 100

Internal Vehicle Interfaces .................................................................................................. 100
External Vehicle Intergration .............................................................................................. 103
VI.
Safety ............................................................................................................................ 104
Safety Officer ...................................................................................................................... 104

Preliminary Checklist.......................................................................................................... 105
Safety Procedures................................................................................................................ 106
Hazard Analysis .................................................................................................................. 107
Design Failure Modes ......................................................................................................... 115
Section 4: AGSE Criteria ............................................................................................................ 116
Ground Support Performance Criteria ................................................................................ 116
Overall AGSE Sequence of Events..................................................................................... 117
Launch Rail Design............................................................................................................. 118
Rover Design....................................................................................................................... 136
AGSE Verification .............................................................................................................. 142
Section 5: Project Plan ................................................................................................................ 146
Budget Plan ......................................................................................................................... 146
Funding Plan ....................................................................................................................... 148

Timeline .............................................................................................................................. 149
Educational Engagement..................................................................................................... 150
Section 6: Appendices................................................................................................................. 151
Appendix A Stability Analysis Graphs ................................................................................ 151
5 MPH Wind .................................................................................................................... 151
10 MPH Wind .................................................................................................................. 153
15 MPH Wind .................................................................................................................. 156
20 MPH Wind .................................................................................................................. 158
Appendix B Timelines ......................................................................................................... 161
General Timeline................................................................................................................. 161
Detailed PDR/CDR Timeline.............................................................................................. 163
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Launch Vehicle Overview .............................................................................................. 12
Table 2: Overall Ground Support Dimensions ............................................................................. 12
Table 3: Basic Mission Verification Metrics ................................................................................ 16
Table 4: Carbon Fiber Material Properties ................................................................................... 25
Table 5: Phenolic Tubing Material Properties .............................................................................. 25
Table 6: Payload Components ...................................................................................................... 29
Table 7: Telemega Specifications ................................................................................................. 38
Table 8: Perfect Flight Specifications ........................................................................................... 39
Table 9: Propulsion component descriptions ................................................................................ 41
Table 10: G5000 Specifications .................................................................................................... 44
Table 11: Vehicle Statement of Work Verification ...................................................................... 47
Table 12: Overall Assembly Mass Properties ............................................................................... 49
Table 13: Individual Subsystem Masses ....................................................................................... 50
Table 14: Parachute Selection Chart ............................................................................................. 50
Table 15: Recovery Events and Descriptions ............................................................................... 52
Table 16: Recovery System Verification ...................................................................................... 58
Table 17: AirBrake Components and Function ............................................................................ 60
Table 18: Screw Critical Speed calculations................................................................................. 63
Table 19: Power Calculations ....................................................................................................... 64
Table 20: Peak linear velocity....................................................................................................... 64
Table 21: Pitch Calculation ........................................................................................................... 64
Table 22: Torque from inputted force ........................................................................................... 65
Table 23: Force from inputted torque ........................................................................................... 65
Table 24: Stepper Motor Specifications........................................................................................ 67
Table 25: Proposed First Iteration Drag Force Calculation .......................................................... 74
Table 26: CFD Drag (Z) results with AirBrake closed ................................................................. 77
Table 27: CFD Drag (Z) results with AirBrake at five degrees .................................................... 78
Table 28: CFD Drag (Z) results with AirBrake at 15 degrees ...................................................... 78
Table 29: CFD Drag (Z) results at full deployment ...................................................................... 80
Table 30: Spreadsheet calculation at full deployment .................................................................. 81
Table 31: AirBrake Computer Inputs............................................................................................ 88
Table 32: Overall Rocksim Vehicle Values.................................................................................. 89
Table 33: Motor Simulated Specifications.................................................................................... 91
Table 34: Flight Simulation Data .................................................................................................. 97
Table 35: Descent Rate Energy Calculation ............................................................................... 100

Table 36: First Draft, Procedure Checklist ................................................................................. 106
Table 37: Risk Assessment Matrix ............................................................................................. 108
Table 38: Lab/Machine Shop Risk Assessment.......................................................................... 109
Table 39: AGSE Risk Assessment Matrix .................................................................................. 111
Table 40: Stability/ Propulsion Risk Assessment ....................................................................... 113
Table 41: Launch Day Risk Assessment..................................................................................... 113
Table 42: Environmental Effects Risk Assessment .................................................................... 115
Table 43: Failure Mode Analysis ................................................................................................ 116
Table 44: AGSE Sequence.......................................................................................................... 117
Table 45: Overall Launch Rail Dimension ................................................................................. 119
Table 46: PA-04 Specifications .................................................................................................. 130
Table 47: Ground Support Component Description ................................................................... 135
Table 48: AGSE Verification...................................................................................................... 145
Table 49: Comprehensive Launch Vehicle Budget .................................................................... 147
Table 50: Comprehensive AGSE Budget ................................................................................... 148
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overall Launch Vehicle Assembly................................................................................ 16
Figure 2: Overall Vehicle Configuration ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 3: Rocksim Simulation of Launch Vehicle........................................................................ 20
Figure 4: Von Karman nosecone, current model .......................................................................... 21
Figure 5: Von Krmn nosecone, proposal CAD model .............................................................. 22
Figure 6: Rational for Von Karman nosecone .............................................................................. 22
Figure 7: Base Nosecone Dimensions .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 8: Back View of Nosecone ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 9: Nosecone Mass Properties............................................................................................. 24
Figure 10: Launch Vehicle Airframe assembly ............................................................................ 24
Figure 11: Parachute Bay Airframe .............................................................................................. 26
Figure 12: Section View of Parachute Bay ................................................................................... 26
Figure 13: Mass Properties of parachute bay ................................................................................ 27
Figure 14: Payload Bay Subsystem .............................................................................................. 27
Figure 15: Isometric View with Airframe removed...................................................................... 28
Figure 16: Mass Properties Section View in the Open Position ................................................... 28
Figure 17: Rack and Pinion Assembly.......................................................................................... 29
Figure 18: HS-645MG Servo Characteristics ............................................................................... 30
Figure 19: Micro Maestro 6-channel Servo Controller Specifications and wiring diagram. ........ 30
Figure 20: Payload Retention Clips .............................................................................................. 31
Figure 21: Payload Assembly Housing Isometric Views ............................................................. 32
Figure 22: Payload Assembly Housing with components loaded................................................. 32
Figure 23: AirBrake Section Mass Properties............................................................................... 33
Figure 24: Electronics Bay section cut ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 25: Electronics Bay mass properties.................................................................................. 34
Figure 26: Computer Mounting Bay ............................................................................................. 35
Figure 27: Component Placement Height ..................................................................................... 35
Figure 28: Wiring Path.................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 29: Electronics bay on rails ............................................................................................... 36
Figure 30: Rail attachment location .............................................................................................. 37
Figure 31: TeleMega Flight Computer ......................................................................................... 37
Figure 32: PerfectFlite flight computer......................................................................................... 38
Figure 33: BeagleBone computer ................................................................................................. 39
Figure 34: Propulsion Bay assembly dimensions ......................................................................... 40
Figure 35: Propulsion Bay ............................................................................................................ 41

Figure 36: Cesaroni Pro 75 casing ................................................................................................ 42
Figure 37: Cesaroni Pro 75 casing dimensions ............................................................................. 42
Figure 38: Cesaroni Pro 75 ........................................................................................................... 42
Figure 39: FinSim Simulation ....................................................................................................... 43
Figure 40: Fin mounting location.................................................................................................. 44
Figure 41: Overall assembly mass, without motor ....................................................................... 48
Figure 42: Overall Launch Vehicle Dimensions........................................................................... 50
Figure 43: Iris Ultra 120'' Parachute ............................................................................................. 51
Figure 44: Black Powder Location ............................................................................................... 51
Figure 45: Recovery Sequence ..................................................................................................... 52
Figure 46: Steal eyebolt with bulkhead......................................................................................... 53
Figure 47: Eyebolt data sheet ........................................................................................................ 53
Figure 48: Archetype Rocketry Cable Cutter ............................................................................... 54
Figure 49: Suggested Manufacturer Configuration ...................................................................... 54
Figure 50: Redundant Cable Cutters ............................................................................................. 55
Figure 51: Recovery System Electrical Schematic ....................................................................... 56
Figure 52: AirBrake Bay ............................................................................................................... 59
Figure 53: AirBrake System Operational Diagram....................................................................... 59
Figure 54: System Components .................................................................................................... 60
Figure 55: AirBrake Closed .......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 56: Airbrake Open ............................................................................................................. 61
Figure 57: Grade 8 Steel Fully Threaded Rod .............................................................................. 62
Figure 58: End Fixity Factor ......................................................................................................... 63
Figure 59: FEA of basic steel lead screw...................................................................................... 66
Figure 60: FEA of Aluminum lead screw ..................................................................................... 66
Figure 61: Selected Stepper Motor ............................................................................................... 67
Figure 62: Stepper Motor Dimensions .......................................................................................... 68
Figure 63: Torque vs. RPM........................................................................................................... 68
Figure 64: Stepper Motor Design Alternative............................................................................... 69
Figure 65: Left - SBACB606DD-20 1/4 I.D bearing housing. Right - 6383K214 1/4 I.D bearing
....................................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 66: Teflon Bushings........................................................................................................... 70
Figure 67: AirBrake Flap Linkage ................................................................................................ 70
Figure 68: Flap hinge mounting .................................................................................................... 71
Figure 69: AirBrake System Flaps ................................................................................................ 72
Figure 70: Airbrake Flap section cut............................................................................................. 72

Figure 71: AirBrake Flap mass properties .................................................................................... 73
Figure 72: Flap Dimensions .......................................................................................................... 75
Figure 73: CFD results with AirBrake closed............................................................................... 76
Figure 74: Nosecone tip stagnation pressure ................................................................................ 76
Figure 75: Five Degree angle flap deployment............................................................................. 77
Figure 76: Close-up of pressure distribution around flap ............................................................. 77
Figure 77: Pressure Close-up of 15 degree flap deployment ........................................................ 78
Figure 78: Airflow over flap at 15 degree deployment................................................................. 79
Figure 79: Pressure Distribution over Flap ................................................................................... 79
Figure 80: Pressure distribution at engine cut-off......................................................................... 80
Figure 81: Rocksim Schematic of Launch Vehicle ...................................................................... 89
Figure 82: Supplier-Provided Thrust Curve.................................................................................. 90
Figure 83: Simulated Thrust Curve............................................................................................... 91
Figure 84: CG/CP vs. Time, no wind............................................................................................ 92
Figure 85: Static Margin vs. Time, no wind ................................................................................. 93
Figure 86: No Wind Flight Profile ................................................................................................ 94
Figure 87: 5-mph Wind Flight Profile .......................................................................................... 94
Figure 88: 10-mph Wind Flight Trajectory................................................................................... 95
Figure 89: 15-mph Wind Flight Profile ........................................................................................ 96
Figure 90: 20-mph Flight Profile .................................................................................................. 96
Figure 91: Altitude vs. Time, no wind .......................................................................................... 97
Figure 92: Range (Drift) vs. Time, no wind ................................................................................. 98
Figure 93: Mach Number vs. Time, no wind ................................................................................ 98
Figure 94: Nosecone Interface .................................................................................................... 101
Figure 95: Parachute Bay to AirBrake Bay Interface ................................................................. 102
Figure 96: AirBrake Bay to Propulsion Bay Interface................................................................ 102
Figure 97: AGSE Sequence Flowchart ....................................................................................... 103
Figure 98: Launch Rail Assembly in Horizontal State ............................................................... 118
Figure 99: Launch Rail Assembly in Launch Position ............................................................... 118
Figure 100: Initial Launch Rail configuration ............................................................................ 120
Figure 101: Final Launch Rail configuration.............................................................................. 120
Figure 102: Launch configuration............................................................................................... 121
Figure 103: Sliding motion mechanism ...................................................................................... 122
Figure 104: Launch Rail Angular Velocity................................................................................. 123
Figure 105: Framework Base Body ............................................................................................ 125
Figure 106: Framing Piping Cross Section ................................................................................. 125

Figure 107: Basic Piping Specifications ..................................................................................... 126
Figure 108: Rover Ramp ............................................................................................................. 126
Figure 109: Two piece joint ........................................................................................................ 127
Figure 110: Three piece joint ...................................................................................................... 127
Figure 111: Articulated joint ....................................................................................................... 128
Figure 112: Repurposed car antenna........................................................................................... 129
Figure 113: PA-04 Linear Actuator ............................................................................................ 129
Figure 114: PA-04 Linear Actuator dimensions ......................................................................... 130
Figure 115: 12V DC, Speed vs. Load ......................................................................................... 131
Figure 116: 12V DC, Current vs. Load....................................................................................... 131
Figure 117: Load on Main Supporting Beam ............................................................................. 132
Figure 118: Supporting beam buckling simulation ..................................................................... 133
Figure 119: Top View, Ground support ...................................................................................... 134
Figure 120: Side View, Ground support ..................................................................................... 134
Figure 121: Ground Support Assembly Components ................................................................. 134
Figure 122: RaspberryPi computer ............................................................................................. 136
Figure 123: Standard Webcam.................................................................................................... 137
Figure 124: Continuous Servo .................................................................................................... 138
Figure 125: Standard Servo......................................................................................................... 139
Figure 126: Launch Vehicle Cost Chart ..................................................................................... 146
Figure 128: AGSE Budget Chart ................................................................................................ 148
Figure 130: CG/CP vs. Time, 5-mph wind ................................................................................. 151
Figure 131: Static Margin vs. Time, 5-mph wind ....................................................................... 151
Figure 132: Altitude vs. Time, 5-mph wind................................................................................ 152
Figure 133: Range (Drift) vs. Time, 5-mph speed ...................................................................... 152
Figure 134: Mach Number vs. Time, 5-mph wind ..................................................................... 153
Figure 135: CG/CP vs. Time, 10-mph wind ............................................................................... 153
Figure 136: Static Margin vs. Time, 10-mph wind ..................................................................... 154
Figure 137: Altitude vs. Time, 10-mph wind.............................................................................. 154
Figure 138: Range (Drift) vs. Time, 10-mph wind ..................................................................... 155
Figure 139: Mach Number vs. Time, 10-mph ............................................................................ 155
Figure 143: Range (Drift) vs. Time, 15-mph .............................................................................. 157
Figure 144: Mach Number vs. Time, 15-mph wind ................................................................... 158
Figure 148: Range (Drift) vs. Time, 20-mph .............................................................................. 160
Figure 149: Mach Number vs. Time, 20-mph wind ................................................................... 160
SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF PDR REPORT

I.
Team Summary
University Name:
Team Name:
Mailing Address:
Florida International University

PantherWorks Space
Florida International University
College of Engineering and Computing
10555 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33174
Launch Vehicle Name:
Ad Astra
Mentor Name: Joseph Coverston
Certification: Level 2 Tripoli Rocketry Association
Contact Information: jcove001@fiu.edu | 407-754-6572
II.
Launch Vehicle Summary

The following table outlines a basic overview of this years competition launch vehicle.
The launch vehicle preliminary design followed has focused on minimizing manufacturing
complexity, while keeping structural integrity and stability in flight.
Overall Length (in.)
138.8
Diameter (in.)
Mass (lbs.)
Motor Choice
Recovery System
6.155
23.83
Cesaroni 4263L1350 P
Signal Main Deployment
Tabl e 1 : Launch Vehi cl e Overvi ew
III. AGSE/Payload Summary

Dimension
Length
Width
Height
Weight
At resting position
108.00
68.81
31.86
At launch position
108.00
68.81
104.46
120 lbs
Tabl e 2 : Overal l Ground S upport Di mens i ons
The table above outlines a summary of the basic dimensions of the updated ground
support assembly. The autonomous rover body will be 3D printed, and controlled by a
RaspberryPi computer. Its motion will be controlled by servos. The entire AGSE design focuses
on functionality and innovation on autonomous that could be used on Mars.
SECTION 2: CHANGES MADE SINCE PROPOSAL

I. Vehicle Criteria Changes
The competition launch vehicle has met with a number of changes intended to optimize
the design since the initial proposal stage. The following list summarized the changes
encountered since the proposal:
The parachute bay will now come before the payload in the launch vehicle, in order from
nosecone to motor bay.
The AirBrake bay dimension has been accounted for in the total launch vehicle
dimension. In addition, mechanism has been finalized, and components have been
chosen.
Payload bay design has changed from an open and closed type configuration to a
rotationally opened door.
Motor selection has been changed from a Cesaroni 3300L3200 P to a Cesaroni

4263L1350 P.
Recovery system has been changed from a six foot drogue and a ten foot main to only a
twelve foot main parachute.
The parachute bay location has been changed in order to decrease the number of
components needed to be ejected from the launch vehicle at separation. Previously, both the
nosecone and the payload bay had to be separated in order for the parachute to be deployed. This
configuration allows only the nosecone to need ejection for parachute deployment.
The total launch vehicle length now accounts for the air braking bay, and the
mechanism that will be used to operate the flaps has been developed.
The payload bay design has been changed to save on both weight and length. Using an
actuator to open and close the payload bay proved to add a significant amount of weight to
launch vehicle, as well as, undesirably, increase the amount of length the payload bay would
need to take up.
Although the initial weight prediction in the conceptual phase of the design was mostly
accurate, the overall length of the vehicle changed significantly. Because of this, a motor with a
longer burn time was chosen in order to reach the desired apogee height.
In order to save on both overall weight and length of the vehicle, it was determined that
only a twelve foot main parachute was needed for the given application. The ejection of the
nosecone will be used to initialing destabilize the descent of the launch vehicle, and the
deployment of the main will sufficiently slow the descent rate of the vehicle for a safe landing.
II.
AGSE Criteria Changes
The AGSE design has been fully developed from an initial concept idea to a fully
developed design. The support structure has been designed using readily available components,
and the system for lifting the launch vehicle into position and inserting the igniter has been
established. The following list summarizes changes made since the proposal:
The basic overall structure has been changed.

The ignitor device changed from a linear actuator to a standard telescoping antenna.
Launch rail movement has been changed and been developed, and the lifting mechanism
is more feasible.
The overall dimensions have been defined.
A more detailed computer aided design model has been designed.
While the overall purpose of the AGSE hasnt changed, the way the task is performed has
changed dramatically. In general, a much more detailed and refined version has been built. From
initial concept, with a basic intuition of how the AGSE performed, the current design has a much
more complete layout in terms of the components to be used and basic movement analysis. The
base of the AGSE originally had legs that placed the rail above the ground to allow the linear
actuator to clear the ground. The current design uses the truss structure to obtain the same
results; however, the linear actuator has been replaced with a cars telescoping radio antenna.
The movement has been changed from the originally design, from rotating around the
blast plate to a planar motion that positions the rail and launch vehicle close to the middle of the
ground support itself to create a much more stable platform during launch. Finally, the lifting
mechanics went from a motor and gear box assembly to a linear actuator that would pull the rail
towards the center. This system, while slightly more complicated than the original, uses less
custom made parts; and the ones that are purchased have all been tested with a high fidelity of
information about their properties.
III. Project Plan Changes

No significant changes have been made to the project plan.
SECTION 3: VEHICLE CRITERIA

I. Launch Vehicle Design
MISSION STATEMENT
The FIU PantherWorks Space team will design and build an Autonomous Ground
Support Equipment (AGSE) capable of performing on pad operations to prepare a high
powered rocket for launch. The rocket will be designed to be capable of reaching an altitude no
greater than 5,280 feet above ground level. In addition, the AGSE will recover a payload located
outside the launch vehicles mold line and insert it into the delegated payload compartment.
MISSION VERIFICATION
Requirement
Reasoning
FIU ASME will design and

build a launch vehicle in a
timely manner consistent
with guidelines specified by
NASA Student Launch
officials.
FIU ASME wishes to

comply with all competition
requirements and does not
want to be penalized or
disqualified from the
competition.
FIU ASME will follow and

comply with all NAR rules
when conducting any testing
and launch procedures.
FIU ASME wishes to protect

the safety of its members as
well as the public present at
testing and launch events.
FIU ASME will conduct a

subscale flight test of the
launch vehicle prior to the
full-scale flight test and prior
to CDR.
FIU ASME wishes to verify

that design choices for the
vehicle are valid by testing
them on a subscale rocket
before entrusting them to the
full-scale rocket. The
subscale flight test also
serves to satisfy a
competition requirement.
In addition to verifying
design choices, the full-scale
launch will serve to satisfy
NASA Student Launch
competition requirements.
FIU ASME will complete a

full-scale test flight of the
vehicle prior to FRR in order
to validate vehicle design by
ensuring all parts function as
Verification
FIU ASME will develop and
maintain a schedule for the
design, construction, and
testing of the launch vehicle
such that all requirements are
met by specified NASA
Student Launch deadlines.
FIU ASMEs Safety Officer
will ensure that all of its team
members are educated in
safety practices and will
enforce safety in all aspects
of construction, design,
testing, and launch of the
vehicle.
FIU ASME will follow its
project schedule to ensure
that both flight tests are
conducted in a timely manner
to ensure compliance with
NASA Student Launch
competition deadlines.
FIU ASME will contact

several local rocketry groups
to ensure that different
options are available for the
designed and ensure that the

vehicle can remain launchready for at least one hour.
location and time of test

launches.
Tabl e 3 : B as i c Mi s s i on Veri fi cati on Metri cs
MISSION SUCCESS CRITERIA

The vehicles mission will be considered to be a success if the following criteria are met:
1) The vehicles apogee does not exceed 5600 ft. above ground level.
2) AirBrake successfully guilds rocket to 5280 ft.
3) The main parachute is deployed at 800 ft.
4) The vehicles descent is controlled and does not result in damage to itself, property, or
people.
5) No safety violations occur.
DESIGN OF LAUNCH VEHICLE
Fi g ure 1 : Overal l Launch Vehi cl e As s embl y
The team is focusing on overall efficiency and reusability of the launch vehicle by
employing a modular design. The launch vehicle designed this year features revamped versions
of certain systems; these revisions were done by using prior experiences as guides to improve
upon the quality and precision of the of all components and assemblies present in launch vehicle.
Fi g ure 2 : Overal l Vehi cl e Confi g urati on
Figure 2 shows the basic layout of all sub sections of the launch vehicle: nosecone bay,
main recovery bay, cache containment bay, electronics bay, air braking bay, and propulsion
bay. The launch vehicle is designed to be made of Kraft Phenolic wrapped in carbon fiber and
will feature an air braking system to insure target altitude is never surpassed.
Applicable Formulas
In order to accurately ascertain the stability and success of the rocket, three important
values must be calculated: peak altitude, center of gravity, and center of pressure. The peak
altitude is found through a specific sequence of equations. The average mass is first calculated
using:
In this equation, is the rocket mass, is the motor mass, and is the propellant
mass. The aerodynamic drag coefficient (kg/m) is further computed by:
In the equation above, is the air density (1.22 kg/m3), D is the drag coefficient, and
is the rocket cross-sectional area (m2). Equations 1 and 2 are used to calculate the burnout
velocity coefficient (m/s) using,
Here, is the motor thrust, and is the gravitational constant (9.81 m/s 2). Equations 1, 2,
and 3 are then used to compute the burnout velocity decay coefficient (1/s) with the following
formula:
Then, equations 3 and 4 are used to calculate the burnout velocity (m/s) as follows:
where t is motor burnout time (s). The altitude at burnout can then be calculated by:
With the burnout altitude having been calculated, the coasting distance can be found by
first beginning with the value of the coasting mass which is calculated as follows:
The average mass in equations 3 and 4 is replaced with the coasting mass. This
replacement results in equations 8 and 9 for the coasting velocity coefficient and coasting
velocity decay coefficient, respectively:
Equations 8 and 9 are subsequently used to calculate the coasting velocity (m/s) using:
Furthermore, the coasting distance can then be computed as follows:
From the coasting distance calculation, the peak altitude can be found as follows:
The center of gravity location is calculated using:
where W is the total weight, d is the distance between the denoted rocket section center of
gravity (nose, rocket, body, engine, and fins, respectively) and the aft end. Moreover, the center
of pressure measured from the nose tip can be found using this equation:
In this equation, the (CN)N is the nose cone center of pressure coefficient, and the N is
computed by this formula:
where N is the nose cone length. The (CN)F in equation 14 is the fin center of pressure
coefficient calculated using the following equation:
The variables in this equation are defined as follows, R is the radius of the body at the aft
end, S is the fin semi span, N is the number of fins, Lf is the length of the fin mid chord line,
CR is the fin root chord length, and T is the fin tip chord length. The final variable in equation
14, f, is calculated using;
where B is the distance from the nose tip to the fin root chord leading edge and X R is the
distance between the fin root leading edge and the fin tip leading edge measured parallel to body.
Equations 14 through 17 are also known as the Barrowman Equations (The Theoretical
Prediction of the Center of Pressure, 1966).
Stability and Construction

The launch vehicle airframe will be constructed primarily of Kraft Phenolic wrapped in
carbon fiber, and the internal structure will be constructed out of fiberglass, plywood, ABS
plastic, and aluminum. The vehicle is designed to house a cache capsule payload within its
airframe. To ensure an efficient design, the launch vehicle has been designed to use as much
internal space as reasonably possible.
Fi g ure 3 : Rock s i m S i mul ati on of Launch Vehi cl e
The vehicle is designed such that the payload bay will be located directly beneath the
main recovery system. This allows one of the heavier systems in the vehicle to sit high up in the
rocket, thus raising the center of gravity and increasing stability. The figure above also shows the
location of electronic bay, right below the payload compartment. The AirBrake system is housed
below the electronic bay, followed by the propulsion bay.
DESIGNS AT A SYSTEMS LEVEL

The following sections serve to analyze the design for each subsystem and reiterate the
individual systems requirements.
Nosecone Design
The design of this years launch vehicle utilizes a Von Krmn nosecone.
Fi g ure 4 : Von Karman nos econe , current model
The following equations were used to create the shape of the Von Krmn nosecone in a
3D computer aided design modeling software to insure accurate simulation results.
(18)
(19)
The variables in the previous two equations are defined

as follows:
C = 0 for Von Krmn
L = Length
R = Radius of base for nose cone
x = Distance from tip of nose cone
Fi g ure 5 : Von Krmn nos econe , propos al CAD model
Selection Rationale
The Von Krmn was the initial first choice for our teams design, due to its optimal
performance at subsonic and transonic speeds. Unlike other nosecone shapes, the Von Krmn
nosecone is mathematically derived for the purpose of minimizing drag. The following equations
were used to create the shape of the Von Krmn nosecone in a 3D computer aided design
modeling software to insure accurate simulation results. The geometry can then be exported to a
CNC lathe; allowing the nosecone to be manufactured with ease. Fiberglass was chosen as the
nosecone material because of its lightweight characteristics and strong material properties.
Fi g ure 6 : Rati onal for Von Karman nos econe
Fi g ure 7 : B as e Nos econe Di mens i ons
The nosecone is at a 5:1 ratio, with a length of thirty inches from the shoulder to the tip
with a 6.155 inch base.
Characteristics
Fi g ure 8 : B ack Vi ew of Nos econe
The back of the nosecone is enclosed with fiberglass in order to ensure that the ejection
events push the parachute out of the upper airframe tube, allowing the main parachute to open.
Fi g ure 9 : Nos econe Mas s Properti es
The above image demonstrates the mass properties given by the computer software
program used to model the launch vehicle assembly.
Airframe
Fi g ure 1 0 : Launch Vehi cl e Ai rframe as s embl y
Selection Rationale
By using commercially available phenolic tubing, the ease of being able to use pre
made bulkheads and coupler sections can be taken advantage of, simplifying the manufacturing
process. The carbon fiber overlay is used to increase the rigidity and load bearing capacity of
the airframe. The outer layer of carbon fiber provides the airframe with excellent axial material
properties. Overlaying the phenolic with a carbon fiber layer the otherwise somewhat brittle
phenolic. Pure carbon fiber airframe were considered, but the increased cost of both couplers and
the airframe causes it to be quickly eliminated from our design selection.
Characteristics
Having the team manufacture the carbon fiber wrapped phenolic airframe sections in
house enables allows for a saving in cost and the ability to quality check each airframe as it is
being manufactured. This provides us with an inexpensive way to manufacture carbon fiber
reinforced airframe sections. Replacement couplers, centering rings and bulkheads are all readily
available for commercial purchase. Furthermore, carbon fiber wrapped phenolic is strong and
resistant to hard landings. The following two tables outline material properties for both carbon
fiber and phenolic tubing.
Tabl e 4 : Carbon Fi ber Materi al Properti es
Tabl e 5 : Phenol i c Tubi ng Materi al Properti es
Parachute Bay
Fi g ure 1 1 : Parachute B ay Ai rframe
The parachute bay and the payload bay will be both be housed in a single phenolic
airframe tubing. This was done to insure space was used efficiently, making this the longest bay
of our launch vehicle. These two systems will be placed in one full length, 48 section of
phenolic tubing. A bulkhead will separate the parachute bay from the payload bay. Finite
element analysis (FEA) simulations will be conducted on the bulkhead and airframe structure to
insure components can handle a black powder charge to be used for parachute ejection. The
following two images show the overall dimensions and mass properties of this section.
Fi g ure 1 2 : S ecti on Vi ew of Parachute B ay
Fi g ure 1 3 : Mas s Properti es of parachute bay
Further analysis of specifics related to the recovery subsystem may be found in section 2
of the vehicle criteria portion of this report.
Payload Bay
Fi g ure 1 4 : Payl oad B ay S ubs ys tem
The payload bay will be accessible to the AGSE by separation of the airframe into two
halves using a rack and pinion system. A housing for the electronics operating the rack and
pinion system will be 3-D printed out of ABS plastic. The encasing will be JB welded to the
lower tube and mounted to a bulkhead by a #6-32 socket head screw. A balsa wood plate is
mounted on top of the housing using four inch counter bore socket head screws as well. Two
inch retention clips will also be printed from ABS and mounted above the balsa wood plate in
order to safely secure the payload cache into the assembly. A pin and spring mechanism acting
through the rack will provide a lock for the subsystem during flight and ejection of parachute.
Fi g ure 1 5 : Is ometri c Vi ew wi th Ai rframe removed
5
8
Fi g ure 1 6 : Mas s Properti es S ecti on Vi ew i n the Open Pos i ti on
As can be seen from the Figure above, optimizing the payload bay to be as compact and
lightweight as possible while maintaining the safety of the payload cache is our main goal for the
efficiency of this subsystem.
Payload Bay Components
Component
1 Rack Assembly
2 Servo Motor
3 Retention Clip
4 Battery Pack
Description
32 Pitch 6.54 in. Delrin Rack and Aluminum Beam
133 Oz-in Continuous Rotation Motor and 32 Pitch Gear
ABS Plastic
6V 1600mah NiMH Battery
5 Locking Mechanism
6 Wiring Door
7 Micro Maestro 6-Channel USB
8 Assembly Component Housing
Metal Spring and pin rod lock

Balsa Wood
Highly Compact Servo Controller
ABS Plastic
Tabl e 6 : Payl oad Components
Rack and Pinion Assembly

A 32 pitch rack made of Delrin was chosen due to its light weight and durable
characteristics. The rack is attached by a #6-32 socket head cap screw with a Nylon nut to an
aluminum beam to provide more support for the upper portion of the airframe as is moves out of
the channel within the assembly housing.
Fi g ure 1 7 : Rack and Pi ni on As s embl y
The bolt also holds steel two right angle brackets that are mounted to the upper bulkhead
containing the eye bolt for the parachute bay. This will allow the entire upper portion of the
airframe to be pushed forward on the launch rail upon interaction with the AGSE.
The HS-645MG Ultra Torque servo was chosen according to the amount of force required to
displace the upper portion of the launch vehicle 5 inches in order to for the AGSE to gain access
to the retention clips where the payload cache will be held. This particular type of motor
provides the most efficient capabilities over gear motors and stepper motors according to the
application it is needed for. It is lightweight, 1.94 oz., in comparison to gear motors, and
provides continuous rotation with precision position control from the potentiometer, whereas
stepper motors have a tendency to lose position due to the magnetic field used to drive it. The
figure below provides further characteristics.
Fi g ure 1 8 : HS -6 4 5 MG S ervo Characteri s ti cs
Payload Electronics
The HS-645MG servo will be controlled by the Micro Maestro 6-channel USB servo
controller. This controller a bit bigger than a dime and provides all that is needed to control the
servo for the application at hand. With internal scripting control and its own USB program
interface for position control it is a versatile controller that can easily get the job done at low
cost, . Other controllers common controllers such as an Arduino UNO were considered by
proved to be too big for the compact space provided. The high-resolution pulse range, 64-3280
microseconds, makes it perfect for a high performance application and reliability. This will allow
the servos position to be controlled over the time frame of the cache loading. The figure below
provides more specifications on the microcontroller.
Fi g ure 1 9 : Mi cro Maes tro 6 -channel S ervo Control l er S peci fi cati ons and wi ri ng di ag ram.
Both the microcontroller and servo will be powered by a 6V 1600mah NiMH

rechargeable power supply. This is a very high capacity battery pack in a small size providing
better efficiency than NiCAD batteries. LiFe and LiPo batteries were considered but were not as
cost effective as the currently chosen pack providing the necessary power for the equipment
being used.
Retention Clips
In order to securely transport the payload throughout flight in the launch vehicle,
retention clips made of ABS plastic were an optimal solution. Once the payload assembly is in
the open position the payload can then be placed between the clips providing a snug compression
fit to reduce and sloshing or bouncing. The clips not only can be manufactured and tested in
house, but can be optimized according to the test data.
Fi g ure 2 0 : Payl oad Retenti on Cl i ps
The clips not only provide great stability for the payload but are also very light weight.
The angled ends of the clips provide guidance as the cache is brought closer into the center of the
clip. The clips will be 3D printed in ABS plastic due to its flexibility as compared to commonly
used PLA plastic.
Payload Assembly Housing
The assembly housing for the payload is an integral component to allow this system to
perform properly. The following figures provide insight into the detail of the design.
Fi g ure 2 1 : Payl oad As s embl y Hous i ng Is ometri c Vi ews
Fi g ure 2 2 : Payl oad As s embl y Hous i ng wi th components l oaded
As can be seen from above the housing will be unique to the design and 3D printed out of
PLA plastic due to the necessity for a more detailed design and higher strength and rigidity than
ABS. Each component has its own location within the housing to be mounted with #6-32 socket
head cap screws. The rack and beam have a channel that it will move within in order to prevent it
from dislodging and contacting other components within the housing. The battery pack has a
small hole next to its placement for the wiring to enter through, while there is also a hole for the
wiring of the servo as well. A small balsa wood door will block off the excess wiring from both
components and provide a common hole for them to enter through and attach to the
microcontroller. This solves the problem for excess wiring or requirement of a harness.
This housing is attached to the airframe tube by JB weld, a highly efficient epoxy capable
of withstanding the proposed load rating from our design at ejection of the parachute. The load
from ejection on the eyebolt will be transferred down the rack and aluminum beam which was
engaged by a spring pin lock on the final hole. The load will then be dispersed from the metal pin
over the assembly housing which is attached to the airframe by JB weld. The lower bulkhead is
attached to the housing by a #6-32 socket head cap screw.
AirBrake Bay
Fi g ure 2 3 : Ai rB rak e S ecti on Mas s Properti es
The success of the launch vehicle for this competition is determined by two key factors:
an apogee height of one mile and launch vehicle stability during its ascent. In order to achieve
am apogee height of as close to one mile as possible, the PantherWorks team is designing a
continuously self-adjusting AirBrake system. The launch vehicle will overshoot the one mile
goal at launch, and approximately half way through its trajectory deploy the proposed
AirBrake system. It will consist of flaps that use information from the altimeter to calculate
projected maximum altitude and real time trajectory.
This system is not just designed for a target apogee of 5280ft, it can be reprogramed to
6000ft, 8000ft, or 10,000ft. This allows our launch vehicle to be capable of a wide range of
altitude marks. Further analysis into the detail of this subsystem may be found in section 3 of the
Launch Vehicle Design portion of this report.
Electronics Bay
The electronics bay will house the two flight computers and the AirBrake computer, in
addition to the batteries needed to power the three computers and the AirBrake stepper motor.
Fi g ure 2 4 : El ectroni cs B ay s ecti on cut
Fi g ure 2 5 : El ectroni cs B ay mas s properti es
The flight computers will be mounted on one of the 3 surfaces of the triangle seen in
Figure 17 below. This triangle design allows 45.3 square inches of area on each surface for
mounting components with a clearance of 1.80 inches, as seen in Figure 18. The electronics bay
will also house at least three 9 volt batteries, one for each flight computer.
Fi g ure 2 6 : Computer Mounti ng B ay
Fi g ure 2 7 : Component Pl acement Hei g ht
Wires will be organized thorough the center of the triangle, seen in Figure 19. This
allows for a main wiring harness which connects all the flight computers and the stepper motor
and clears the wiring harness from any tangling obstacles.
Fi g ure 2 8 : Wi ri ng Path
The electronics bay is planned to be 3D printed in ABS plastic. This allows us to design
mounting locations for all three computers into the design to be 3D printed, saving the extra time
and weight that would be needed if mounting would need to be design. In addition, no wiring
holes will have to be drilled. ABS plastic has excellent material properties and can handle heat
better than other 3D printed plastics.
Fi g ure 2 9 : El ectroni cs bay on rai l s
The electronics bay is designed to be on metal rails for easy access to any flight
components. If repairs are needed, launch vehicle can be taken apart at the AirBrake section and
electronics bay pulled out to be worked on. The rails also act as reinforcement for the airframe
and will be mounted, on one end, to the bulkhead between AirBrake and electronics bay
compartments.
Fi g ure 3 0 : Rai l attachment l ocati on
Selection Rationale
The function of the electronics bay is to safely house flight electronics used to record
flight data during launch and landing, as well as perform ejection events and AirBrake control at
specified altitudes. Due to the need for redundancy, it will need to house two flight computers
and a GPS unit along with the required power for each.
In addition to strength requirements, the electronics bay must be easily accessible and
removable for electronics maintenance and charge reloading. The triangle design allows this as
the electronics are mounted on the surface. Once the electronics bay is pulled out the electronics
can be worked on without removing them from the bay, allowing for simple repairs.
Electronics
Fi g ure 3 1 : Tel eMeg a Fl i g ht Computer
The TeleMega flight computer is a high end recording, dual deploy altimeter for high
power model rocketry with integrated GPS and telemetry link. The features included make
TeleMega the ideal choice for complex projects. In particular, pyrotechnic events are
configurable and can be based on time and various flight events and status, including angle from
vertical. The following tables outlines the specifications of this computer.
Telemega Key Features:
Recording altimeter for high power model rocketry
Supports dual deployment and 4 additional pyro events.
Pyro events are configurable and can be based on time and various flight events and
status, including angle from vertical (for safety in staging and air start flights).
70cm ham-band transceiver for telemetry downlink
Barometric pressure sensor good to 100k feet MSL
1-axis 105-g accelerometer for motor characterization
3-axis 16-g accelerometer for gyro calibration
3-axis 2000 deg/sec gyros
3-axis magnetic sensor
On-board, integrated GPS receiver
On-board non-volatile memory for flight data storage
USB for power, configuration, and data recovery
Integrated support for LiPo rechargeable batteries
User choice of pyro battery configuration, can use primary LiPo or any customer-chosen
separate pyro battery up to 12 volts nominal.
3.25 x 1.25 x 0.625 inch board designed to fit inside 38mm airframe coupler tube
Weight: 25g (0.88oz)
Tabl e 7 : Tel emeg a S peci fi cati ons
Fi g ure 3 2 : PerfectFl i te fl i g ht computer
The StratoLoggerCF collects flight data (altitude, temperature, and battery voltage) at a
rate of 20 samples per second throughout the flight and stores them for later download to a
power removed. The following table outlines the specifications of this flight computer.
StratoLoggerCF Key Features
Works to 100,000 feet MSL, audibly reports peak altitude and maximum velocity after
flight.
Stores 16 flights of 18 minutes each (altitude, temp-erature, and battery voltage at 20
samples per second) for download to a computer with the optional DT4U USB interface.
Hi-speed sampling and storage of battery voltage serves as a useful aid in diagnosing
intermittent problems with your battery, switch, and wiring. All data are preserved
with power off.
Deploys drogue and main chutes with audible ematch continuity check.
Outputs capable of 5A current for 1 full second to allow use with nearly any ematch or
ematch substitute. Reverse polarity protection prevents spontaneous firing if battery is
connected backwards.
Main chute deployment altitude is adjustable from 100 feet to 9,999 feet in 1 foot
increments. 9 presets allow for quick change in the field.
No Mach delay necessary for Mach+ flights: Automatic Mach Lock assures proper
operation with any flight.
Brownout protection will tolerate 2 second power loss in flight no need for multiple
batteries.
Precision sensor & 24 bit ADC yield superb 0.1% accuracy.
Built-in voltmeter reports battery voltage on power up no more guessing about battery
condition.
Post flight locator siren aids in locating your rocket.
Confusion-free individual terminal blocks unreliable multiple wires per terminal are
not necessary. Dedicated switch terminal block eliminates the need for splicing switch
into battery wire.
Highly resistant to false trigger from wind gusts; tested in 100+ MPH winds!
Selectable apogee delay for dual altimeter setups prevents overpressure from
simultaneous charge firing.
Low power design runs for weeks on a standard 9V alkaline battery. Post-flight locator
siren will run for months, giving you multiple second chances to find a lost rocket.
Telemetry output for real-time data in flight with your RF link.
Rugged SMD construction, stringent QC testing, and internal self-diagnostics assure
uncompromising reliability.
Wide operating temperature range of -40F to +185F.
Measures just 2.0"L x 0.84"W x 0.5"H, fits 24mm tube, weighs just 0.38 oz.
Tabl e 8 : Perfect Fl i g ht S peci fi cati ons
Fi g ure 3 3 : B eag l eB one computer
The BeagleBone is credit card sized Linux with plenty of I/O and processing power for
real-time analysis provided by an AM335x 720MHz ARM processor. The BeagleBone can be
complimented with cape plug in boards to augment functionality.
This will be the dedicated computer for the AirBrake stepper motor. It will perform all
flight calculations need to deploy the AirBrake system. The BeagleBone will receive flight data
from the flight computer for its altitude projection calculations.
Propulsion Bay
Fi g ure 3 4 : Propul s i on B ay as s embl y di mens i ons
Fi g ure 3 5 : Propul s i on B ay
Component
1 Engine Casing
2 Coupler Tube
3 Bulkhead
4 G10 Fins
Description
6 grain aluminum engine casing
12 in. coupler
Provides engine and fin support
Provides stability
Tabl e 9 : Propul s i on component des cri pti ons
The propulsion bay will serve two specific purposes: as the connection point for the fins
and the motor and motor case housing. Our propulsion bay is design to be modular and easily
interchangeable with a larger or smaller propulsion bay as the needed.
Selection Rationale
The lower airframe consists of the lower body tube, the motor mount and the fins. This
portion of the rocket will be exposed to the largest forces of any rocket section. As a result an
emphasis must be placed on obtaining the sturdiest design possible.
The rationale of making the propulsion bay interchangeable from the launch vehicle
allows the ability to fulfill multiple mission profiles. Interchanging a larger engine allows us to
achieve a higher altitude.
Characteristics
The engine casing will be flush against the airframe coupler to optimize space, as can be seen in
Figure 26. Three trapezoidal G10 fiberglass fins will be attached to the propulsion bay and will
be both surface mounted and center ring mounted. The engine casing will be held in place by
centering rings.
Engine Casing
Fi g ure 3 6 : Ces aroni Pro 7 5 cas i ng
Fi g ure 3 7 : Ces aroni Pro 7 5 cas i ng di mens i ons
Cesaroni Pro 75 rocket motor hardware is CNC machined from 6061 T6 aluminum
alloy and anodized for corrosion protection. Five components make up a complete Pro75 motor
hardware set: the motor casing, the forward closure, the nozzle holder (rear closure), and the one
threaded retaining rings for each end of the case. An accessory wrench is available which make
fitting and removing the retaining rings simple.
Fi g ure 3 8 : Ces aroni Pro 7 5
Fins
Three trapezoidal G10 fiberglass fins will attach near the end of the propulsion bay to provide
stability to the launch vehicle. Trapezoidal G10 fiberglass fins where selected based on past
years experience. They are simple and cost effective to manufacture. A thickness of a quarter
inch was selected for the thickness due to fin divergence and flutter calculations. FinSim was
used to test the fin design, as can be seen in the following image.
Fi g ure 3 9 : Fi nS i m S i mul ati on
Fin flutter can rip our propulsion bay apart. With a G10 fin thickness of a quarter inch,
the flutter speed is 2768.22 ft/s. Our maximum velocity is 765 ft/s, well under the simulated
flutter speed of the fins being used.
Fi g ure 4 0 : Fi n mounti ng l ocati on
The fins will have a root cord length of 12 inches, a tip cord of 3 inches, a semi- span of 5
inches, and a front sweep of 3 inches. Fins will be surface mounted and mounted on the engine
centering rings, as can be seen in Figure 31 above. Fin will be mounted using G5000 high
strength epoxy or an equivalent epoxy. The epoxy will be placed as filets on the surface and on
the sides of the centering rings. The specifications of this epoxy can be found in the table below.
Specific gravity, Resin
Specific gravity, Hardener
Specific gravity mixed
Tensile strength
Compression strength
Elongation at break %
1.52
1.48
1.5
7,600 psi
14,800 psi
6.3%
Tabl e 1 0 : G5 0 0 0 S peci fi cati ons
LAUNCH VEHICLE VERIFICATION

The table below outlines the verification of all statements of work provided by the
competition for the launch vehicle design.
Requirement
Number
Requirement
Design Feature
Verification Method
1.1
The vehicle shall deliver the

payload to an apogee
altitude of 5,280 feet above
ground level (AGL).
The vehicle has been

designed to a certain length
and weight in order to reach
the given apogee height on
an L class motor and the
air braking system.
1.2
The vehicle shall carry one

commercially available,
barometric altimeter for
recording the official altitude
used in the competition
scoring.
The launch vehicle shall be
designed to be recoverable
and reusable. Reusable is
defined as being able to
launch again on the same
day without repairs or
modifications.
The launch vehicle

electronics bay will house
two altimeters for
redundancy purposes.
1.3
1.4
1.5
The launch vehicle shall

have a maximum of four (4)
independent sections. An
independent section is
defined as a section that is
either tethered to the main
vehicle or is recovered
separately from the main
vehicle using its own
parachute.
limited to a single stage.
The apogee height analysis

will be done using software
such as Rocksim, while also
being supported by rough,
general hand calculations for
redundancy. The AirBrake
will be verified with the use
of a computer code to
determine in flight
adjustment requirements.
Both systems will be tested
during the subscale flight
test.
The altimeters will be tested
by inspection upon purchase,
in addition to being tested on
the vehicle subscale flight.
The launch vehicle is being

designed to be a modular
vehicle. Any one section
may be easily replaced with
a new section in an
emergency. In addition, all
components in the vehicle
can be accessed and repaired
given any kind of
circumstance on the day of
launch.
The recovery scheme for the
launch vehicle allows for
only one main separation
event. The nosecone will
land alongside the rest of the
vehicle tethered by a shock
cord. This corresponds to
only two independent
sections.
Manufacturing processes
will be kept secure enough to
withstand the force of launch
and landing, but will be kept
simple enough to allow for
repairs. Spare parts will be
available on competition day
for any small, necessary
repairs.
The vehicle will only house

one motor in the main
propulsion bay.
The design of the vehicle

will be inherently limited to
one motor by the
construction of only one
propulsion bay.
The shock cord tethering the

nosecone will be purchased
to exceed the force needed to
withstand ejection and
landing. Furthermore, the
shock cord will be tested
upon purchase.
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11

capable of being prepared
for flight at the launch site
within 2 hours, from the
time the Federal Aviation
Administration flight waiver
opens.
capable of remaining in
launch-ready configuration
at the pad for a minimum of
1 hour without losing the
functionality of any critical
on-board component.
capable of being launched
by a standard 12 volt direct
current firing system.
The firing system will be
provided by the NASAdesignated Range Services
Provider.
The launch vehicle shall use
a commercially available
solid motor propulsion
system using ammonium
perchlorate composite
propellant (APCP) which is
approved and certified by
the National Association of
Rocketry (NAR), Tripoli
Rocketry Association
(TRA), and/or the Canadian
Association of Rocketry
(CAR).
The total impulse provided
by a launch vehicle shall not
exceed 5,120 Newtonseconds (L-class).
The entire team will be

trained on vehicle
integration and assembly
launch day procedures.
Each member will practice

their individual tasks
multiple times before launch
day, and the entire team will
practice a full assembly
procedure until the process is
smooth and organized.
All power sources for the on The ability of all batteries to
board flight computers will stay charged enough to be
be fully charged prior to
fully operational throughout
launch.
an hours time will be
empirically tested before the
competition date.
Pressure vessels on the

vehicle shall be approved by
the RSO and shall meet the
following criteria:
There are no pressure

vessels present or planned in
the current launch vehicle
design.
The propulsion system of the

launch vehicle is being
designed to have the ability
of being launched by a
standard 12 volt direct
current firing system.
The team will verify this

requirement during the
subscale launch, and before
the competition day launch.
The motor being used for the

launch vehicle is
commercially available for
purchase.
Any change in motor choice

between the preliminary and
critical design reviews will
entail only certified,
commercially available
motors.
The total impulse on the

motor selected does not
exceed the given value of
5,120 Newton seconds.
This is verified by the data

provided by the
manufacturer. The
specifications of the motor
will be carefully checked if
any change in motor occurs.
Appropriate measures will
be taken if a change in
design requires the presence
of a pressure vessel.
1.12
1.13
1.11.1. The minimum factor

of safety (Burst or Ultimate
pressure versus Max
Expected Operating
Pressure) shall be 4:1 with
supporting design
documentation included in
all milestone reviews.
1.11.2. Each pressure vessel
shall include a pressure
relief valve that sees the full
pressure of the tank.
All teams shall successfully
launch and recover a
subscale model of their fullscale rocket prior to CDR.
The subscale model should
resemble and perform as
similarly as possible to the
full-scale model, however,
the full-scale shall not be
used as the subscale model.
All teams shall successfully
launch and recover their fullscale rocket prior to FRR in
its final flight configuration.
The rocket flown at FRR
must be the same rocket to
be flown on launch day
The team has a subscale

launch planned for the first
few days of 2016.
This launch will serve as a

proof of concept for all
pertinent subsystems on the
launch vehicle.
A test launch for the full

scale launch vehicle is
planned for mid February
of 2016.
All components of each

subsystem will be tested on
the test flight for verification
of all processes.
Tabl e 1 1 : Vehi cl e S tatement of Work Veri fi cati on
CRITICAL MASS STATEMENT
Fi g ure 4 1 : Overal l as s embl y mas s , wi thout motor
The estimated mass of the launch vehicle is 26.18 pounds. This is based on CAD
calculated mass. Rocksim gives a similar mass of 26.75 pounds.
The basis of the first mass estimation is CAD calculated mass, where the software takes
into account material volume and density to calculate mass. Based on past experiences, the CAD
software is accurate if done correctly.
Sources of error can develop from assigning wrong material value to a component, or by
incorrectly creating a material if it is not already found on the software programs library.
This calculated mass was double checked by Rocksim, where the components have
weight given to them straight from the manufacturer provided data. Since both mass
estimations differ by only half a pound, this mass estimate can be assumed to be correct. As
component design becomes more detailed, the 3D CAD software mass tool will become more
valuable at mass predictions, since Rocksim only has a limited amount of built in components.
Mass properties of 001 Top Down Asm. Rev1
Configuration: Default
Coordinate system: -- default -Mass = 26.18 pounds
Volume = 1206.97 cubic inches
Surface area = 13205.86 square inches
Center of mass: ( inches )
X = 0.00
Y = -0.00
Along axial body Z = 9.65
Principal axes of inertia and principal moments of inertia: ( pounds * square inches )
Taken at the center of mass.
Ix = (0.00, -0.00, 1.00)
Px = 259.42
Iy = (0.74, 0.67, 0.00)
Py = 27875.14
Iz = (-0.67, 0.74, 0.00)
Pz = 27878.72
Moments of inertia: ( pounds * square inches )
Taken at the center of mass and aligned with the output coordinate system.
Lxx = 27876.76
Lxy = 1.78
Lxz = -0.00
Lyx = 1.78
Lyy = 27877.10
Lyz = -0.06
Lzx = -0.00
Lzy = -0.06
Lzz = 259.42
Moments of inertia: ( pounds * square inches )
Taken at the output coordinate system.
Ixx = 30313.41
Ixy = 1.78
Ixz = 0.06
Iyx = 1.78
Iyy = 30313.75
Iyz = -0.12
Izx = 0.06
Izy = -0.12
Izz = 259.42
Tabl e 1 2 : Overal l As s embl y Mas s Properti es
The team plans on a minimal mass growth of 25%. This is due to epoxy and design
components becoming more fully defined. Weight addition can also come in unforeseen
reinforcement of critical areas.
Due to CAD mass calculations, the team can accurately track gain in mass throughout the
design process. In a worst case scenario in which we become too heavy to reach a one mile
apogee height, the engine casing is large enough to select a larger engine, allowing us to reach
the target altitude. Based on Rocksim calculations, a six pound gain in mass will make our
vehicle too heavy reach the target altitude on the chosen motor.
Launch Vehicle Section
Section Length (in.)
Mass (lbs.)
25% Mass Increase
Nosecone
Parachute Bay
Payload Bay
30.0
24.0
10.8
2.47
7
2
3.09
8.75
2.5
Electronics Bay
AirBrake Bay
Propulsion Bay (Without
motor casing
Motor Wight (With
casing)
Total Weight
12.0
9.5
30.80
2
4.16
6.81
2.5
5.2
8.51
36.89
8.88
11.1
33.32
41.65
Tabl e 1 3 : Indi vi dual S ubs ys tem Mas s es
FULL LAUNCH VEHICLE ASSEMBLY
Fi g ure 4 2 : Overal l Launch Vehi cl e Di mens i ons
II.
Recovery Subsystem
PARACHUTE SELECTION RATIONALE

The performance characteristics from three parachute geometries were compared to select
the optimal geometry for this years competition recovery system.
Parachute
Drag Coefficient
Sky Angle CERT

3TM Series
Iris Ultra
Pro-Experimental
1.9 Rocket Man
Descent Rate
with ~33 lbs
Size
2.59
17 ft./s
132 in.
Packing
distance in 6in
diameter
14in
2.2
.8
15 ft./s
17.45 ft./s
120 in.
144 in.
10in
N/A
Tabl e 1 4 : Parachute S el ecti on Chart
The Iris Ultra 120 inch parachute was selected for the main parachute due to its greater
efficiency for the given application when compared to that of the other options. Its high drag
coefficient of 2.2 allowed for low descent rate. Another deciding factor in this choice was the low
packing height, in a 6 inch tube, that this parachute provided. Since this parachute will support entire
weight of the descending launch vehicle, a low descent rate was valued. With this type of parachute
we have the option of selecting a high power toroidal or a more compact toroidal depending on
the development of the current vehicle design. Both of these derivatives of the Iris Ultra still
maintain a drag coefficient of 2.2. The bridal of this parachute is one inch webbing with a swivel
that can support 6000 lbs, with the option of a quarter inch Kevlar bridal. The shroud lines are
Nylon llla 400# Paraline and the overall parachute has a weight of 49oz.
Fi g ure 4 3 : Iri s Ul tra 1 2 0 ' ' Parachute
The final factor in deciding on this parachute came with the kinetic energy calculations
that were done to ensure that the parachute chosen would allow the launch vehicle to land with a
kinetic energy of less than 75 ft lbf.
RECOVERY FLIGHT PATH

At apogee, a black powder charge located above the payload bulkhead (see Figure 15
below) will eject the nosecone from the rest of the launch vehicle airframe. This will, in turn,
pull the main parachute out of the airframe. This is demonstrated in step 1 of Figure 16.
Fi g ure 4 4 : B l ack Powder Locati on
The main parachute will be ejected restrained by a plastic cable tie, which can be seen in
step 2 of Figure 16. This restrained main will function more like a drogue parachute by
destabilizing and slowing down the descent of the launch vehicle. Simultaneously, the AirBrake
system will open to its maximum angle to further slow the descent of the vehicle. At 800 feet, a cable
cutter will release the main parachute, allowing it to open. At this point, the AirBrake system will
retract its flaps so that they are not damaged during the impact of landing, as seen in step 3 of Figure
16.
Fi g ure 4 5 : Recovery S equence
Event
1
Altitude Segment
5280 ft.
Event Description
Apogee.
Nose cone ejection.
Entire launch vehicle under
restrained main parachute acting as
drogue.
5280 ft. 800 ft.
Main restrained with cable ties.

AirBrake at full flap deployment.
800 ft.
Main cable ties are cut allowing

main to open.
Airbrake flaps retract for landing
Tabl e 1 5 : Recovery Events and Des cri pti ons
RECOVERY SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Shock Cable and Eyebolt
The parachute shock cable will be attached to a steel, nylon coated eyebolt, which can
be seen below in Figures 17 and 18. The eyebolt is rated for a vertical load capacity of 2600 lbs.
This eyebolt will be attached to a half inch thick wooden bulkhead and half inch locking hex nut.
Fi g ure 4 6 : S teal eyebol t wi th bul k head
Fi g ure 4 7 : Eyebol t data s heet
Parachute Cable Cutter
Fi g ure 4 8 : Archetype Rock etry Cabl e Cutter
The cable cutter takes a different perspective on a tether by shearing a plastic cable tie,
which can be used to hold a large number of recovery components. One of the most beneficial
aspects of the cable cutter is by providing the ability to use a single parachute as both the drogue
and the main parachute. Its small size of approximately 1.8 inch length and 0.37 inch diameter
allows it to be placed anywhere in the parachute bay.
Fi g ure 4 9 : S ug g es ted Manufacturer Confi g urati on
The cable cutter uses a black powder charge to fire a shearing pin towards the cable tie,
consequentially shearing it. This process will occur in the enclosed airframe area, and the pin is
fired inward so no damage can befall the user or the launch vehicle.
Fi g ure 5 0 : Redundant Cabl e Cutters
In case of an altimeter failure, a secondary altimeter and cable cutter combination will be
available to successfully fire and deploy the recovery equipment. Two cable cutters will be
placed on the same cable tie. This ensures that if one fails, the other can cut the cable.
ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC
Fi g ure 5 1 : Recovery S ys tem El ectri cal S chemati c
RECOVERY SYSTEM VERIFICATION

The table which follows outlines the verification guidelines for the competition
requirements pertinent to the recovery system of the launch vehicle.
Requirement
Number
2.1
Requirement
Design Feature
Verification Method
The launch vehicle shall

stage the deployment of its
recovery devices, where a
drogue parachute is
deployed at apogee and a
main parachute is deployed
at a much lower altitude.
The vehicle recovery has been

designed for a tumble recovery
at apogee and a main
deployment at 800 feet. The
tumble recovery will consist of
the nosecone being ejected off
the upper airframe, pulling the
The recovery system will be

tested empirically both on
the subscale and final full
scale flight.
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Tumble recovery or streamer

recovery from apogee to
main parachute deployment
is also permissible, provided
the kinetic energy during
drogue-stage descent is
reasonable, as deemed by
the Range Safety Officer.
Teams must perform a
successful ground ejection
test for both the drogue and
main parachutes. This must
be done prior to the initial
subscale and full scale
launches.
At landing, each
independent section of the
launch vehicle shall have a
maximum kinetic energy of
75 ft-lbf.
The recovery system
electrical circuits shall be
completely independent of
any payload electrical
circuits.
main parachute out of the

parachute bay. At 800 feet, a
cable cutter will be used to
deploy the main parachute.
The parachute electronics bay

will not be integrated into the
subscale and final, full scale
assembly until the recovery
system ejection has been tested
for functionality.
The team will perform

ejection tests before the
final vehicle assembly is
built to ensure the system
will deploy correctly.
The chosen parachute has a

coefficient of drag allowing the
rocket to slow down
sufficiently for a safe descent.
Hand calculations have been

done for landing kinetic
energy alongside
verification from Rocksim
simulation values.
The team will be aware of
the wiring of both the
payload and the electronics
bay in order to avoid
integrating the two.
The design of each subsystem

has been done so that the
payload electrical circuits are
not being integrated with the
flight computer electrical
circuits.
The recovery system shall
The launch vehicle recovery
contain redundant,
system has been designed to
commercially available
include two altimeters for
altimeters.
redundancy purposes.
Motor ejection is not a
There are no plans of ejecting
permissible form of primary the motor out of the launch
or secondary deployment.
vehicle, nor using it as means
An electronic form of
of primary or secondary
deployment must be used for deployment. The flight
deployment purposes.
computers will be used to send
out signals for parachute
deployment.
A dedicated arming switch
Both flight computers present
shall arm each altimeter,
in the launch vehicle will have
which is accessible from the independent arming switches
exterior of the rocket
accessible from the exterior of
airframe when the rocket is
the airframe.
in the launch configuration
on the launch pad.
Both altimeters will be

tested before being
integrated into the vehicle.
The team will continue
developing the current
means of recovery, without
considering motor ejection
as a means of deployment.
The team will clearly mark

the arming switch for each
flight computer on the
exterior of the launch
vehicle airframe.
2.8
Each altimeter shall have a

dedicated power supply.
All three flight computers

present in the electronics bay
are equipped with a 9 volt
battery power source.
2.9
Each arming switch shall be

capable of being locked in
the ON position for launch.
The arming switch for each

altimeter is being designed to
be turned on and off by using a
simple lock and key
mechanism.
2.10
Removable shear pins shall

be used for both the main
parachute compartment and
the drogue parachute
compartment.
An electronic tracking
device shall be installed in
the launch vehicle and shall
transmit the position of the
tethered vehicle or any
independent section to a
ground receiver.
The recovery system
electronics shall not be
adversely affected by any
other on-board electronic
devices during flight (from
launch until landing).
2.11
2.12
During manufacturing, the

team will make sure the
each flight computer is
wired correctly to its
respective 9 volt battery.
The team will integrate each
flight computer circuitry to
an independent arming
switch. Each individual key
will be dually marked for
ease of recognition.
A GPS unit will be placed in

both the electronics bay of the
main airframe and in the
tethered nosecone.
The team will make sure

both GPS units are
integrated securely in each
independent section
separate from any other
components.
The launch vehicle will be

designed so that each flight
computer will experience no
disruption to its individual
performance.
The team will be

conscientious of keeping the
electronics of the launch
vehicle safe from
disturbance.
Tabl e 1 6 : Recovery S ys tem Veri fi cati on
III. AirBrake Subsystem
Fi g ure 5 2 : Ai rB rak e B ay
Fi g ure 5 3 : Ai rB rak e S ys tem Operati onal Di ag ram
SUBSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The AirBrake section is 23.77 inches long by 6 inch diameter airframe.
Fi g ure 5 4 : S ys tem Components
Component
1 Bulkhead
2 Bearings
Function
Separates the airbrake system
Allows the Screw to rotate with minimal
friction
Transfers motion to flaps
Rides on screw allowing for transfer of
rotational motion to liner
Extends rotation from motor allows nut to
move on it.
Provides drag force at different angles
Allows flap to rotate open
Main structure
Allows precise control of flaps
3 Flap link
4 Screw nut
5 Screw
6 Carbon fiber Flap
7 Flap hinge
8 Airframe
9 Stepper Motor
Tabl e 1 7 : Ai rB rak e Components and Functi on
Flap Motion
Fi g ure 5 5 : Ai rB rak e Cl os ed
Fi g ure 5 6 : Ai rbrak e Open
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Bulkhead
The bulkhead closest to the engine bay will be made of G 10 fiberglass in order to be
able to handle the thrust rating of our chosen engine. The bulkhead on which the stepper motor
will be mounted will be either plywood or G 10 fiberglass, depending on more in depth load
calculations on the flaps.
Ball Screw
Fi g ure 5 7 : Grade 8 S teel Ful l y Threaded Rod
Both steel and aluminum were considered as material choice for the ball screw, but the
steel screw was chosen over an aluminum one because of steels high strength, commercial
availability, and inexpensive cost. This screw will be cut and machined to our specific needs.
Force Calculations
Calculated theoretical critical velocities are carried out for the case when both ends of a
screw are fixed into bearings, as it is in our specific application. However, the teams research
has found that maximum velocity should be less than 80% of this calculated value.
Critical speed refers to the RPM at which the natural frequency of a rotating shaft will
occur. This vibration, also called resonance, will occur regardless of the orientation of the
leadscrew. The critical speed also applies to rotating nuts about a lead screw.
=
4.76 106
2
d = Minor Diameter of Screw

L = Distance between nut bearing
N = Fixity type
= 0.25 for fixed-free
= 1.00 for supported-supported
= 2.00 for fixed-supported
= 4.00 for fixed-fixed
Fi g ure 5 8 : End Fi xi ty Factor
Critical speed (RPM)

Root diameter of screw (in)
End fixity factor
Length (in)
18593.75
0.25
1
8
Tabl e 1 8 : S crew Cri ti cal S peed cal cul ati ons
As can be seen from the table above, the maximum stable RPM of this screw is over
18,000 RPM. For the given application, the screw is never expected to go above this value.
Column Strength Calculation
Column strength refers to the maximum load a lead screw can withstand in compression
before failing. Compression loads that exceed the column strength will cause the lead screw to
buckle, or bend. Even the slightest bend can ruin a leadscrew, and threaten the AirBrake system.
The following equation was used to calculate maximum column strength:
14.03 106 4
=
2
After calculation, it was determined that the column strength in the screw is 857 lbs.
Power Calculations
Calculating minimum power output to translate the load provides a starting point for
specifying the rest of the system's components. The equation which follows was used to find the
minimum power output.
=
where F is the load, S is distance traveled, and t is required time to get there.
Calculating minimum power output

Time
4
Distance (in)
5
Power (W)
43.78162
Tabl e 1 9 : Power Cal cul ati ons
Peak Velocity Calculations

The calculated peak linear velocity for this application was calculated using the following
equation:
=
3
2
where vpk = peak linear velocity in in/s, S is distance traveled, and t is required time to get there.
peak linear velocity (in/s)
1.875
Tabl e 2 0 : Peak l i near vel oci ty
This shows the peak linear velocity for the given power output would be 1.875 in/s. This
peak velocity will allow the flaps to be fully opened in 2.5 seconds. The team is aiming for an
ideal velocity of 1.25 in/s, which allow the flaps to fully open or close in 4 seconds.
Minimum Required Pitch
The following equation is used to calculate the minimum pitch needed to keep the
leadscrew speed at approximately 2,000 rpm. The 2,000 RMP value is based on the selected
motor, which is discussed further below.
=
60

where is minimum pitch needed and vpk is the peak linear velocity in in/sec.
Minimum pitch (in.)
Maximum Screw rpm
0.05625
2000
Tabl e 2 1 : Pi tch Cal cul ati on
The minimum distance that the screw would need to advance in one revolution is 0.05625
inches. Using these calculations, the team will be able to soundly choose the proper screw for the
needed requirements.
Torque Calculations
The torque required to lift or lower a load can be calculated by equation shown below.
=
where is Total force (lbs.), L= Lead (distance that a screw, or nut, advances in one
revolution), e= efficiency (no units, use 0.9 for ball screws assemblies). The maximum amount
of load the flaps will ever experience is 310 lbs; therefore, this was used as the selected load for
the torque calculations.
Force Input
Pitch
Torque Needed
310 lbs
0.05625 in
54.17897 oz*in
Tabl e 2 2 : Torque from i nputted force
If the torque of the motor is known, the equation above can be rearranged to solve for
maximum lifting load as follows:
=
where is motor torque.

Input Torque
Pitch
Output Force
75 0.529616
0.05625 1.42875
1908.88 429.1333
Tabl e 2 3 : Force from i nputted torque
The output force of 429 pounds is 119 pounds greater than the worst case scenario,
allowing for there to be a sufficiently large amount of play area in the case of any emergency. As
a reference, the above force and torque calculations are for a worst case scenario if the Airbrake
system were to deploy at a maximum velocity. Under nominal operating conditions, the system
is never expected to experience this type of load.
Lead Screw FEA Analysis
In order to have a successful AirBrake system, the lead screw must be able to withstand
the drag induced by the flaps and the load from the thrust of launch vehicle engine. To check that
the screw would be able to withstand these, FEA simulations were run. The thread of the screw
was ignored to save on computation time.
Fi g ure 5 9 : FEA of bas i c s teel l ead s crew
FEA analysis of our lead screw under a worst case a scenario load resulted in a maximum
stress of 8.615 ksi. The yield strength for this alloy of steel is 51 ksi, giving the lead screw a
factor of safety value of 5.7.
FEA analysis was also run for an aluminum lead screw for comparison purposes in the
following figure.
Fi g ure 6 0 : FEA of Al umi num l ead s crew
The aluminum lead screw also did well under a worst case a scenario load. The maximum
stress was 9.265 ksi, giving a factor of safety of 4.3. An aluminum screw was considered due to
being lighter than its steel counterpart.
Stepper Motor
A high torque stepper motor will rotate the lead screw, and was chosen due its ability to
rotate in precise angles. This selection will also allow for keeping track of position, which would
assist the AirBrake computer in knowing the location of the flaps at all instants in flight.
Fi g ure 6 1 : S el ected S tepper Motor
This motor was selected dude to its high torque, compact size, low weight, and low
inertia, which can be seen in the following specifications table.
Tabl e 2 4 : S tepper Motor S peci fi cati ons
Fi g ure 6 2 : S tepper Motor Di mens i ons
Fi g ure 6 3 : Torque vs . RPM
Depending on the development of the final AirBrake design, the stepper motor selection
may change with calculated torque and RPM needs. A possible design alternative is a stepper
motor with a built in lead screw, seem in the image below.
Fi g ure 6 4 : S tepper Motor Des i g n Al ternati ve
Bearings
Fi g ure 6 5 : Left - S B ACB 6 0 6 DD-2 0 1 / 4 I.D beari ng hous i ng . Ri g ht - 6 3 8 3 K2 1 4 1 / 4 I.D beari ng
Bearings where chosen due to being inexpensive and easy to replace. In addition, they
allow low fiction rotation of the drive screw. The 6383K214 bearing has a maximum dynamic
load capacity of 356 lbs, which surpasses the amount of load this subsystem is ever expected to
encounter. The majority of the loading will be in the axial direction, allowing the transfer of
loads to the housing of the bearing.
Bearing housing for the SBACB606DD-20 is 2017 aluminum alloy. This was chosen
over steel for the purpose of saving weight while still maintaining structural integrity. 2017
aluminum also has good machinability and mechanical properties. Another selection for bearings
could be manufactured Teflon bushings, would allow for greater weight savings but increase
rotational friction.
Fi g ure 6 6 : Tefl on B us hi ng s
Flap Linkages
Fi g ure 6 7 : Ai rB rak e Fl ap Li nk ag e
The linkages between the lead nut and the AirBrake flaps will be an aluminum link. This
link allows the transfer of linear motion to the rotational motion causing the flaps to open. Link
size was determined by computer aided design, which allowed for optimization of the
maximum flap opening angle.
Aluminum was selected because of its low density when compared to steel. Also, it is
easy machinable, allowing for flexibility when deciding on the final design of the linkages. As
the design of this subsystem is developed, the aluminum link geometry will be more concretely
designed.
Flap Mounting and Geometry
Fi g ure 6 8 : Fl ap hi ng e mounti ng
AirBrake flaps will be mounted on one end by hinges, which allow the flaps to rotate
through their range of motion easily. The hinges to be used will be standard door/cabinet hinges,
which was decided upon in order to reduce cost and allow for the hinges to be easily replaceable
in case of any unforeseen emergency. Hinges will be secured onto the bulkhead and the flaps
using standard fastening hardware.
Fi g ure 6 9 : Ai rB rak e S ys tem Fl aps
The AirBrake flaps will open onto the free stream of air, inducing drag on the launch
vehicle. This action will slow down the vehicle, allowing it to accurately reach the target altitude.
The flaps will be cylindrically shaped, in order to minimize drag when in the closed position.
The flaps will be constructed much like the construction of the airframe, with a section of
phenolic tubing wrapped in carbon fiber. This method strengthens the flaps to be able to
withstand the expected loads.
Fi g ure 7 0 : Ai rbrak e Fl ap s ecti on cut
The AirBrake flap will be attached with a pin connection, which will allow for removal
of the flap to either perform repairs or access the internal components of the bay. The following
figure demonstrates the mass properties of the flap design.
Fi g ure 7 1 : Ai rB rak e Fl ap mas s properti es
AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS
The key factor of this system is having the rocket be aware of its current trajectory
through a serious of recurring in flight calculations. If the estimated apogee height of the
rocket, at any given time, is greater than the targeted altitude; the flaps will deploy themselves.
This will induce an extra drag force on the rocket, consequently slowing down its ascent and
decreasing its apogee height. If the system calculated that the rocket is on an optimal trajectory,
the flaps will stay in place and not deploy. The table below gives a general overview of the
calculations the AirBrake system will need to make to achieve its purpose.
Tabl e 2 5 : Propos ed Fi rs t Iterati on Drag Force Cal cul ati on
The flight computer will gather the necessary data, such as the launch vehicle altitude,
velocity, orientation, acceleration, and location. Using this acquired data, a second computer will
process the data and take into account aerodynamic forces to simulate the rockets projected
altitude and trajectory.
If the highest point on the calculated trajectory is over one mile in altitude, the computer
will calculate the amount of drag force needed to hit that target altitude and deploy flaps as
necessary. As vehicle velocity decreases more drag force will be needed; therefore, the flaps will
be extended to full deployment. This will provide maximum amount of drag force.
Since the flap computer will start to process data after engine cut off we may safely
assume that there is no thrust acting on the launch vehicle. Thus we can start with:
=
Where drag is:
And weight is
= sin
Making the appropriate substitutions will leave this derived equation for acceleration:
1
2
(2 ) sin
=
The area (A) is a based on the positon of the AirBrake flaps at the time, where 0 degrees
would be only the cross sectional area of the rocket, and 90 degrees would be cross sectional
area of the rocket plus the area of the flaps. The velocity would be inputted real time from our
flight computer, which would also calculate the coefficient of drag as it varies with the positon of
the flaps.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis

The preliminary aerodynamics were teste through the use of flow simulation software.
The launch vehicle was simulated with the air speed after engine cut off of 765 ft/s, obtained
from Rocksim simulations. Drag force and moments were the main parameters being observed.
For all the following figures, the Z axis is taken to be axial with the launch vehicl e.
Fi g ure 7 2 : Fl ap Di mens i ons
The AirBrake flap will be relatively large due to the increased ability it would provide to
generate drag at slower velocities. As the launch vehicle approaches apogee, its velocity is
greatly decreased when compared to the velocity at engine cut off.
Fi g ure 7 3 : CFD res ul ts wi th Ai rB rak e cl os ed
As expected, the pressure at the nosecone is higher than at the rear. This can be a credited
to the Von Krmn nosecone purpose of minimizing drag.
Fi g ure 7 4 : Nos econe ti p s tag nati on pres s ure
Above, you can see as flow reaches a stagnation point, the fluid velocity reaches zero and
all kinetic energy has been converted into pressure and temperature isentropically. For this
reason our Von Krmn nosecone will have an aluminum tip to withstand increased heat and
pressure of a stagnation point.
Tabl e 2 6 : CFD Drag (Z) res ul ts wi th Ai rB rak e cl os ed
The drag value of 245 N is equivalent to 55 lbs of drag at maximum launch vehicle
velocity. This is only marginally different from the value of 58 lbs obtained when calculating the
drag force in the spreadsheet seen in Table 17.
Fi g ure 7 5 : Fi ve Deg ree ang l e fl ap depl oyment
Fi g ure 7 6 : Cl os e -up of pres s ure di s tri buti on around fl ap
After engine cut off the launch vehicle will be at its maximum flight velocity. During
this time, small angle increments will have large impact on drag force. An increase of five
degrees in flap deployment angle results in 62.5 lbf of drag force, which is an increase of 7 lbf
when compared to no flap deployment.
Tabl e 2 7 : CFD Drag (Z) res ul ts wi th Ai rB rak e at fi ve deg rees
The following two images show the pressure distribution and drag at fifteen degrees of flap
deployment.
Fi g ure 7 7 : Pres s ure Cl os e -up of 1 5 deg ree fl ap depl oyment
Tabl e 2 8 : CFD Drag (Z) res ul ts wi th Ai rB rak e at 1 5 deg rees
The drag force being provided by the flaps at fifteen degrees of deployment is about 33
lbf.
Fi g ure 7 8 : Ai rfl ow over fl ap at 1 5 deg ree depl oyment
Fi g ure 7 9 : Pres s ure Di s tri buti on over Fl ap
Figure 49 demonstrates airflow over the AirBrake flap with a fifteen degree deployment,
where the orange and red colors highlight areas of high local air speeds. Figure 50 shows the
total pressure distribution over the AirBrake flap. Orange and red signal a higher pressure than
the surrounding green area.
Worst Case Scenario

The worst case scenario the AirBrake will ever see is if the flaps were to fully deploy
right after engine cut off, when the surrounding air speed is 765 ft/s. This scenario would only
occur if a computer malfunction causes the flaps to fully deploy immediately after engine cut
off.
Fi g ure 8 0 : Pres s ure di s tri buti on at eng i ne cut -off
Tabl e 2 9 : CFD Drag (Z) res ul ts at ful l depl oyment
As can be seen from the images above, 282.8 lbs of drag are provided by the AirBrake in
this scenario. In accordance with this, the AirBrake subsystem will be designed to be able to
withstand this maximum load. The images below demonstrate that the spreadsheet calculations
also confirm this maximum drag force.
Tabl e 3 0 : S preads heet cal cul ati on at ful l depl oyment
CODE DEVELOPMENT
The design of the air-braking systems code can be divided into several steps and sub-steps.
These steps are listed below.
1. Initial Altitude Prediction
2. Onboard Altitude Prediction
3. Error Correction
4. Integration
These steps are not necessarily the order in which the system was designed. Nonetheless,
they provide a good structure for understanding the way the system works.
Initial Altitude Prediction

As stated previously, for this system to work correctly the vehicle needs to overshoot the
given one mile apogee height under any circumstances. To accurately predict the altitude in
varying conditions the team used the program Rocksim, which is known to be reliable and highly
accurate. Throughout the entire code design process Rocksim will be used as our control to test
different methods of altitude prediction against before any actual launch tests occur. Rocksim
allows the user to change many variables outside of rocket configuration including
environmental variables like wind speed, thermal occurances, humidity, and many others. For
this reason, we are assuming our Rocksim predictions to be almost completely accurate.
To determine what motor we needed we ran simulations in worst case scenarios to find
what total impulse/thrust we would need to ensure we at least reach 1 mile. This includes excess
launch angle, launching with the wind, and max allowable wind speed (25 mph). From this we
were able to determine a max altitude and therefore determine a suitable size for the brakes, as is
explained further in the sections prior.
Onboard Coefficient of Drag Prediction

Once the vehicle is launched and the motor is finished firing, the AirBrake software will
begin iterations. The purpose of the software is to actuate the flaps to induce drag. In order to
achieve this, the software will iteratively predict what drag is required to attain an apogee of one
mile. Ideally, we would use the highly accurate methods which programs like Rocksim use to
determine maximum altitude. However, this code, instead of predicting max altitude, is assigning
maximum altitude as a static variable of one mile and solving for the drag required to reach that
maximum altitude. Because Rocksims methods are numerical in nature, they cannot be solved
backwards and are not suitable for our application. Instead we will begin by using the kinematic
equation for projectile motion with air resistance, shown below.
This is the original equation where given values of mass, gravity, velocity, air density,
cross sectional area, and coefficient of drag; the apogee height can be determined. Solving for k
in the equation above, the equation below is obtained. This equation can be easily solved for
Cd*A (coefficient of drag times cross-sectional area) and will be the primary equation in the
code.
While these equations are fairly accurate, they would have a tendency to predict a higher
apogee than reality and therefore cause the brakes to over-extend and the rocket to undershoot.
To combat this, we will be including error correction methods which will be discussed in a later
section.
Determination of Coefficient of Drag

Once the rocket is in flight and the computer has predicted the value for Cd*A required to
reach one mile, the computer will then open the flaps until they match that value. To determine
how much the flaps need to be opened, information needs to be obtained on values of Cd*A for
varying flap positions. For this we decided to run many flow simulations on the launch vehicle
for flap positions starting at 0 degrees all the way to maximum. From this data, and the values of
air density and launch vehicle velocity, we can obtain accurate values for Cd*A at all possible
flap positions.
An additional consideration to take into account during this data acquisition process is the
effect of velocity on the Cd*A value. We will test the same flap position at several different
velocities to determine if a constant value of Cd*A can be used or if another dimension of data
needs to be included in the code.
Once all the data is obtained it can be organized in two different ways. The first would be
to include it in an array within the code. Depending on the rockets current state, the correct
value can be found in a table form. The other way would be to create a best fit curve for the date
and obtain the correct corresponding flap position using an equation. Both of these methods will
be evaluated to determine which is more efficient while the code is running.
Error Correction
Assumption of Projectile Motion with Drag
The assumption of projectile motion with drag allows us to drastically simplify our code
and ensure quick performance. The kinematic equations can be separated into component form
and the horizontal component can be neglected. While this makes coding easy, it is provides a
large source of error in accurately predicting the correct coefficient of drag value. Not only does
it neglect atmospheric variances, but also the effect of the relationship between the center of
pressure and center of gravity on the rocket. Having a Cg located forward of the Cp, increases
stability but introduces a moment on the rocket which will cause the actual apogee of the rocket
to be lower than the one predicted.
Our solution to correct this discrepancy is to compare the differences between apogees
predicted using both projectile motion with drag, and Rocksim, given the same initial starting
conditions. The variables to be tested are initial velocity, and initial tilt. Every combination of
those two variables will be tested and the variances in results recorded. Since we are assuming
Rocksim to be accurate, we will then use the calculated differences to introduce correction
factors into the code to force our predicted apogee using projectile motion with drag to match
that of Rocksim. There is still some debate over where the correction factor should be applied
and there are currently two options. The first is to apply it to the Cd*A value to produce an
effective Cd*A. This method will apply the correction factor after it has been calculated in the
code. The other option is to apply it to the fixed one mile altitude, which would in essence
produce an effective altitude. Both of these options will be tested to determine which is more
accurate and efficient.
The Density Problem
The value of air density to be used during flight will be directly obtained from the flight
computer in real time. This is then used to determine a constant flap position that will
theoretically be maintained until the target apogee is achieved. In reality, density changes with
altitude causing another source of error. To solve this, an average value of air density will be
calculated and used in the code. This can be as simple as using the mean value between the
current density and the density at one mile. Analysis will be done to determine if this would be a
good assumption or not.
Possible real-time error correction using flight data

Another method that is currently being discussed is real-time error correction based on
actual flight data. In this method, the computer will not only predict the value of Cd*A needed to
reach apogee but also predict its own altitude over a small time frame. Once the rocket actually
traveled for the given time, its actual altitude can be compared to the previously predicted
altitude and a correction factor can by dynamically generated and applied to future iterations of
the code.
This idea has some potential issues however. Firstly, it is a lot more for the computer to
calculate; and during the time period where data is gathered, the flaps must stay constant.
Depending on the length of the time period, this could potentially cause the whole system to
react too slowly and not work properly. Other issues are that this method may just introduce even
more error into the system than it removes due to imprecise data sent by the flight computer.
Transient Flap Actuation
Another source of error to be addressed is the dynamic movement of the flaps between
fixed positions. This dynamic movement will be taken into account by calculating an average
interim Cd*A value based on the difference between the starting angle and target angle, and
applying it over the time it takes for the flap to actuate.
Global error correction variable
Once the rocket is constructed and the code is ready, a flight test will be performed.
Based on the variation between the actual achieved apogee and the target of one mile, a final
correction variable can be implemented to calibrate the entire system to be more accurate. This is
based on the assumption that we may end up with a precise system that always tends to
overshoot or undershoot. This global error correction should fix that by altering the target apogee
slightly depending on the systems performance. Implementing this type of correction would
require multiple test flight, being overly costly.
Integration
Testing will be conducted to ensure quick and reliable data transfer from the Telemega
flight computer to the Beaglebone AirBrake controller.
Pseudo Code
The basic sequence of steps the computer must iteratively perform is listed below.
1. Gather current velocity, tilt angle, and altitude from Telemega.
2. Determine y component of Velocity
3. Determine current air density and create an average value based on current and target
altitude
4. Calculate constant Cd*A needed to achieve apogee
5. Apply correction factor to Value of Cd*A
6. Determine brake angle that matches the given value of Cd*A, current velocity, and
current tilt angle.
7. Actuate brake to calculated angle.
a. If brake is already moving to angle, just update target angle.
b. If brake is moving away stop the previous action and go to new angle.
Test Code
Below is a sample of code written in MATLAB that contains the equation for calculating
the value of Cd*A necessary to reach one mile apogee. The results check is to ensure that the
original function used to solve for k is still accurate. In solving for k, a new function is
introduced called the lambert W function, or product log function. In MATLAB so far, this
function takes some amount of time to solve which may be problematic in the future onboard
code.
% Altitude Targeting using Projectile Motion with Drag
clc
clear all
%Input Variables
A = 0.19635;
y = 8000;
v = 800;
m = .93243;
g = 32.18504;
p = 0.002134;
%Function Split into parts cuz matlab is annoying.
f1 = (-m*(v^2)*lambertw(-1,(-2*(exp((-2*g*y)/(v^2)))*g*y)/(v^2)));
f2 = 2*g*m*y;
f3 = 2*(v^2)*y;
k = (f1-f2)/f3;
Cd = (k*2)/(p*A);
disp ('Necessary Cd To Achieve 1 mile at current conditions');
disp (Cd);
%Results Check
CdT = 0.1168;
kt = 0.5*p*CdT*A;
yt = (m/(2*kt))*log(((m*g)+(kt*v^2))/(m*g));
disp ('Max Altitude');
disp (yt);
Below is an excel table used to predict apogee with varying methods. Listed so far is
apogee using simple projectile motion with no drag, projectile motion with drag, and also apogee
if the current measured drag were constant. This chart will eventually be used in the
determination of error correction factors when comparisons to Rocksim are made.
Input Variables
Variable
SI
Coefficient of Drag
Cd
Rocket diameter
d (mm)
Cross Section Area
A (m^2)
English
0.32 Cd
98 d (in)
0.007543 A (ft^2)
Weight
W (lb)
Mass
m (kg)
Velocity
V (m/s)
Angle (deg)
4.535931 m (slug)
30 V (ft/s)
0
9.81 g (ft/s^2)
0.4
6
0.19635
30
0.93243
800
0
gravity
g (m/s^2)
Cd*A
(m^2)
Air Density
(kg/m^3)
1.1 (slug/ft^3)
0.002134
k (kg/m)
0.001328 k (slug/ft)
8.38E-05
Current drag
1.194805
53.64207
Current drag acceleration
0.263409
57.52932
0.002414 ft^2
32.18504
0.07854
Max Altitude
Ymax (m)
45.26652 Ymax (ft)
5702.159
Max Alt w/o Drag
Ymax
45.87156 Ymax
9942.508
Max Alt w/ Current Drag
Ymax
44.67207 Ymax
3566.876
Tabl e 3 1 : Ai rB rak e Computer Inputs
IV. Mission Performance Predictions

MISSION PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
In order for the mission to be deemed successful, the following criteria must be met:
1. The launch vehicle must reach an apogee height of 5,280 feet above ground level
2. The launch vehicle will be designed to be completely recoverable and reusable.
3. Each independent section of the launch vehicle should land with a maximum kinetic
energy of no more than 75 ft lbf.
4. Electrical circuitry of the recovery system will be completely independent of any payload
bay circuitry.
5. The recovery system will be equipped with two commercially available altimeters for
redundancy.
6. Any recovery system components must be deployed electronically; motor ejection may
not be used as a form of deployment.
7. An arming switch will arm each altimeter, and be capable to be left on the on position
for launch.
8. Each altimeter will have a dedicated power supply.
9. Parachute bays will use removable shear pins.
10. Each independently landing, untethered segment of the rocket will have an electronic
tracking device.
LAUNCH VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY

The launch trajectory date of this years competition vehicle was simulated using a
Rocksim model displaying the entire configuration plan of the launch vehicle. This model can be
seen in Figure 71 displayed below. The use of this program allowed different overall
characteristics of the rocket to be determined. These values can be found in Table 31 below.
Overall Length (in.)

Overall Diameter (in.)
Overall Mass (lb.)
Stability Margin
129.07
6.155
34.67
2.36
CG location (from
nosecone tip)
CP location (from
nosecone tip)
88.9
103.04
Tabl e 3 2 : Overal l Rock s i m Vehi cl e Val ues
Fi g ur e 8 1 : Rock s i m S chemati c of Launch Vehi cl e
MOTOR SELECTION
For this years competition, Cesaroni motors were chosen because they are known for
being both reliable and simple to use. The change to the Cesaroni 4263L1350 P, from the
initially proposed Cesaroni 3300L3200 P, was needed due to the addition of thirty five inches
to the overall length of the launch vehicle. This motor choice brought the projected apogee
height to just over six thousand feet. This overshoot in height allows for design and
manufacturing flexibility, as well as allows sufficient time for the computer of the air braking
system to converge on the one mile apogee height and deploy flaps appropriately.
The following images demonstrate two different thrust curves, one given by the
manufacturer and one simulated from the flight data provided by Rocksim.
Fi g ure 8 2 : S uppl i er -Provi ded Thrus t Curve
Fi g ure 8 3 : S i mul ated Thrus t Curve
As can be seen from the above demonstrated plots, the simulated curve matches up very
closely with the thrust curve provided by the manufacturer. The table below outlines the basic
specifications for the motor chosen from the flight data simulated from Rocksim.
Thrust to Weight Ratio
10.93
Rail Exit Velocity
80.39 ft/s
Projected Altitude
6068.31 ft.
Maximum Acceleration
36518.2 ft/s2
Motor Burn Time
3.284 s
Maximum Motor Thrust
346.37 lbf
Average Motor Thrust
293.00 lbf
Total Motor Impulse
962.22 lbf
Tabl e 3 3 : Motor S i mul ated S peci fi cati ons
STABILITY ANALYSIS
In order to validate the choice of motor for this competition, Rocksim was used to find
the stability margin of the launch vehicle. In addition to finding the overall stability margin for
the launch vehicle, Rocksim was used to generate graphs analyzing the stability margin as a
function of time throughout the flight of the launch vehicle. This graph, along with a graph of
center of gravity/center of pressure versus time, may be found in the accompanying figure below.
(The graphs below are for the analysis done with no external wind speed; the graphs for other
analyzed wind speeds may be found in Appendix A.)
Fi g ure 8 4 : CG/ CP vs . Ti me, no wi nd
Fi g ure 8 5 : S tati c Marg i n vs . Ti me, no wi nd
From the above graphs, it can be seen that the static margin of stability always lies in an
acceptable range between launch and apogee height. Therefore, the chosen motor can be deemed
effective for the chosen application.
FLIGHT SIMULATIONS
The flight profile for the launch vehicle, along with any relevant flight data was obtained
by launching the vehicle in Rocksim with the Cesaroni 4263L1350 P motor chosen for this
application. The following image demonstrates the flight profile of the launch vehicle for five
simulated cases: no wind, 5 mph wind, 10 mph wind, 15 mph wind, and 20 mph wind.
Fi g ure 8 6 : No Wi nd Fl i g ht Profi l e
Fi g ure 8 7 : 5 -mph Wi nd Fl i g ht Profi l e
Fi g ure 8 8 : 1 0 -mph Wi nd Fl i g ht Trajectory
Fi g ure 8 9 : 1 5 -mph Wi nd Fl i g ht Profi l e
Fi g ure 9 0 : 2 0 -mph Fl i g ht Profi l e
From these flight simulations, Rocksim provides data for apogee height, in addition to
maximum drift given certain launch criteria. The table which follows outlines the apogee height
and maximum drift distance for all five launch conditions simulated by the above flight profiles,
as well as other useful data such as maximum velocity and acceleration.
Initial Wind Speed
Apogee Height (ft.)
Drift Distance (ft).
0 mph
5 mph
10 mph
15 mph
20 mph
6066.5
6033.4
5991.5
5813.9
5883.0
258.16
1078.9
1516.9
2399.8
2164.3
Max. Velocity
(ft/s)
762.7
762.6
762.3
760.6
761.3
Tabl e 3 4 : Fl i g ht S i mul ati on Data
In addition to this data, Rocksim also provides means of analyzing the graphs of different
parameters with respect to time. The following figures demonstrate the plots of the parameters
mentioned above with respect to time for the case with no wind. The graphical data for the
remaining cases can be found in Appendix A.
Fi g ure 9 1 : Al ti tude vs . Ti me, no wi nd
Fi g ure 9 2 : Rang e (Dri ft) vs . Ti me, no wi nd
Fi g ure 9 3 : Mach Number vs . Ti me, no wi nd
The above graph for Mach number is found by diving the velocity graph by the speed of
sound in air. The relation between Mach number versus time, and velocity versus time, is the
same due the assumption that the speed of sound in the given application is relatively constant.
LANDING ANALYSIS
According to the rules of this competition, a safe landing constitutes a kinetic energy at
landing of no more than 75 ft lbf. The choice of parachute found in the recovery subsystem
portion of this report was done only after the kinetic energy at landing was found to be less than
what the competition specified. The launch vehicle recovery system was designed to allow the
vehicle to land in one segment, therefore only one kinetic energy calculation per parachute
option had to be taken into account.
The terminal velocity of launch vehicle was calculated using
2
=
where E is the kinetic energy, gc is the dimensional constant, and m is the total mass of the
launch vehicle to be recovered. A value of 75 ft lbs was used for the maximum kinetic energy,
since this was the requirement established in the statement of work to determine the minimum
size of the parachute. The steady state velocity under parachute was calculated using
2
=

where g is acceleration due to gravity, is the density of air, C d is the coefficient of drag of the
parachute, and A is the effective area of the parachute.
The following table outlines the method and values used to determine that the final
parachute selection was within the guidelines of the competition:
Tabl e 3 5 : Des cent Rate Energ y Cal cul ati on
From the kinetic energy calculations, it was found that the launch vehicle will have to
descend at a rate of 12.69 ft/s on only one parachute in order to have an energy of 75 ft lb.
With the Iris Ultra, our launch vehicle will have a decent rate of 67.97 ft lb, which is safely
beneath the maximum value.
V.
Interfaces and Integration
INTERNAL VEHICLE INTERFACES

Nylon shear pins will be used to hold the nosecone to the upper airframe during ascent.
At apogee, the nylon pins will be sheared by the ejection event. This allows for the parachute to
be ejected. The following image outlines the above configuration.
Fi g ure 9 4 : Nos econe Interface
The parachute bay airframe will be secured with the AirBrake bay airframe with four
steel pins. The pins will go through the parachute phenolic airframe and be secured onto the rails
on which the electronics bay will slide. The rails will be secured to the walls of the AirBrake
Airframe with high strength epoxy. An L bracket will be used to mount the rails to the
AirBrake bulkhead. This allows any load to be diverted from the electronics bay to the adjacent
bulkhead. The image immediately following demonstrates this interface configuration.
Fi g ure 9 5 : Parachute B ay to Ai rB rak e B ay Interface
To secure the AirBrake bay to the propulsion bay, and aluminum ring will be
manufactured by being milled. This aluminum ring will act as a center ring joining the two
airframes. The airframes will be joined on the aluminum ring, and secured using set screws on
both the AirBrake airframe and the propulsion bay airframe. This can be seen in the following
image.
Fi g ure 9 6 : Ai rB rak e B ay to Propul s i on B ay Interface
EXTERNAL VEHICLE INTERGRATION

The launch vehicle will need to interface with both the payload retrieving rover and the
ground support equipment in order to ensure a smooth and fully autonomous process. To
organize the process, the following flowchart was created. This allowed the entire team to be
adequately aware of the whole scope of the project, even when members are mostly focused on
one portion of the project.
Sequence Initialized by
Start Switch
WiFi Signal Sent to

Rover RaspberryPi
Computer Vision on
Rover Begins Motion to
Search for Payload
Rover Motion Picks

Payload with Clamping
Arm
Rover Travels to
Payload Bay in Vehicle
Payload Deposited in
Bay Clamps
Rover Moves Under Its

Ramp
Radio Signal Sent to

Servo Controller To
Close Payload Bay
After Set Time,

RaspberryPi Uses Radio
Signals to Interface with
AGSE Beaglebone
AGSE Sequence
Initiated
Vehicle Erected, Ignitor

Inserted
Vehicle Launched
Fi g ure 9 7 : AGS E S equence Fl owchart
As is seen in the flowchart image above, the sequence will begin by the allocated start
switch required for the competition. At this point, a wireless signal will be sent to the
RaspberryPi controlling the rover, initializing the webcam computer vision. The rovers servos
will begin to actuate the motion and actively search for the payload. Once the payload has been
located, the rover will pick it up with its clamped arm, and transport it to the launch vehicle
payload bay. After placing it in the clamps, the rover will transport itself underneath the ramp it
uses to travel to the launch vehicle, in order to shield it from any launch debris.
After the rover is safely put away, the RaspberryPi controlling it will send a radio signal
to the servo controller, allowing for the Payload Bay to close. A set time for this action will be
recorded prior; after this time has passed, the RaspberryPi will communicate with the
Beaglebone controlling the ground support. This will begin the launch vehicle erection and
ignitor insertion. After this entire process is complete, the vehicle will be ready to be launched.
VI. Safety
SAFETY OFFICER
Juan Trujillo is the safety officer for the FIU PantherWorks Space team during the 2015
2016 season. He is responsible for taking the steps necessary to ensure the overall safety of the
team members as well as of the public throughout all team activities. He is also responsible for
ensuring compliance with all rules and regulations.
The responsibilities of the Safety Officer include the following:
Monitor team activities with an emphasis on Safety during:

A. Design and construction of vehicle and AGSE
B. Ground testing of vehicle and AGSE
C. Sub-scale launch test
D. Full-scale launch test
E. Competition launch
F. Recovery activities
G. Educational Engagement activities
Lead the team in establishing safety procedures for construction, assembly, launch, and
recovery activities and enforce those procedures
Identify any safety concerns and take appropriate action to mitigate the hazard.
Maintain current revisions of the teams hazard analyses, failure modes analyses,
procedures, and MSDS/chemical inventory data.
Plan for proper purchase, storing, transporting, and use of all energetic devices.
Ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, as well as NAR and TRA
regulations
Provide a written safety manual to the team that includes hazards, safety plans and
procedures, PPE requirements, MSDS sheets, operator manuals, FAA, NAR and TRA
rules and regulations, and confirm the all team members are complying with the rules set
forth in the safety manual
Brief the team before activities on a safety plan for different environments, materials
used, and tests. Enforce proper use of Protective Equipment during these activities
Establish a risk matrix that determines the risk level of each hazard based on likelihood
of occurrence and severity of the event.
PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST
Procedure
The NAR/TRA mentor will check that
the flight computers are set to OFF
before loading the ejection charges.
The entire parachute loads will be
inspected prior to being loaded into the
rocket, and all flame proof materials will
be checked for wear and holes prior to
loading.
The knots on all shock cords will be
checked, as well as the firmness of their
fit onto the airframe and associated
components of the airframe.
Metal to shock cord interfaces will be
checked for rust and smoothness to
ensure that the cord cannot be torn by
the force of ejection.
The TRA mentor will then build and
load the rocket motor into the fully
assembled rocket, and will ensure that
the igniter cannot have voltage across its
terminals by twisting the ends of the
igniter together.
The TRA mentor and the team will then
fill out a flight card for the rocket, stating
its expected altitude and the certified
impulse of the motor.
The rocket will then be loaded onto the
AGSE, and upon completion of payload
insertion, and once the rocket has been
lifted to a proper launch angle, the
ignitor will be inserted by the AGSE into
the rocket engine.
The TRA mentor will check the ignite r
for proper insertion. If the Igniter is
properly inserted, the TRA mentor will
complete wiring the igniter to the launch
control system present at the launch site,
and a team member will arm the flight
Check if safely completed
computers. Once the continuity beeps

from the flight computers are confirme d,
the team will move back to the minimum
safe distance for the launch.
Tabl e 3 6 : Fi rs t Draft, Procedure Check l i s t
SAFETY PROCEDURES
NAR Model Rocket Safety Code
Every team member is required to have read and acknowledged the NAR Model Rocket
Safety Code.
Pre Launch Briefings

Additional briefings on the high power rocketry code for Level 2 flights will occur prior
to the launch day as well as before any preceding tests flight. A short quiz about safe distances
and the procedure for launching a rocket safely will be given prior to travelling out to the launch
site.
Team members will be given a basic instruction on the nature of launch sites, and will be
actively discouraged from engaging in cell phone texting and conversations while at the launch
site, unless they are far from the minimum safe distance required by NAR/TRA for the site.
All team members will be able to identify the potential hazards of assembling the launch
vehicle for launch and will remain focused and alert so that proper protocol is followed.
Caution statements will be issued with every plan of action for the construction of the
launch vehicle and AGSE. The safety officer will create a general Personal Protection Equipment
guideline for team members working on the rocket to consult before starting work each meeting.
The safety procedure will be inserted into every working document after the section that details
the powered equipment, chemicals, or materials to be used.
Rocket Motor Handling

The Chief Engineer will purchase the motor reloads from an online vendor or locally at a
launch site, and will store the reloads in a separate flame proof canister. The Chief Engineer will
load the rocket motor in accordance with TRA guidelines, and will be responsible for the rocket
motor in its entirety.
Ignitors for the rocket motors will come packaged with the reloads, and the ejection
charges will be filled by the Chief Engineer with small amounts of black power, according to the
engineers discretion on the amount of force required to ensure separation. The amount will not
exceed 5 grains of black powder. The black powder will be stored in a separate flameproof
canister from all of the other energetic ingredients, and will have a desiccant loaded into the
canister to aid in the removal and prevention of moisture contamination.
Only team members that have achieved a level 2 certification or higher are allowed to
acquire, store, and manipulate the teams launch vehicle motors. By having obtained a Level 2
certification, the individual has demonstrated that he or she understands the safety guidelines
regarding motors. The motors shall be stored in accordance with the regulations set forth by
NFPA 1127. The motors for both test and competition launches will be transported by car to the
launch site.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
Risk Assessment Matrix
By researching and analyzing each human interaction with the environment and launch
vehicle system, and by reflecting upon past launching experience, hazards have been identified
and will continue to be brought to the teams attention. Each hazard has been assigned a risk
level by evaluating the severity of the hazard and the probability that the hazard will occur using
the risk assessment matrix, found in Error! Reference source not found. X below. This type of
hazard analysis will continue to be done and updated as the project moves forward and more
potential hazards are brought to the teams attention.
A severity value between 1 and 5 has been assigned to each hazard, with a value of 1
being the least severe. In order to determine the severity of each hazard, the outcome of the
mishap was compared to an established set of criteria based on the severity of personal injury,
environmental impact, and damage to the rocket, equipment, or personal property.
A probability value between 1 and 5 has been assigned to each hazard as well, with a
value of 1 being least likely to occur. The probability value was determined for each hazard
based on an estimated percentage chance that the mishap will occur given the following:
All personnel involved have undergone proper training on the equipment being used or
processes being performed.
All personnel have read and acknowledged that they have a clear understanding of all
rules and regulations set forth by the latest version of the safety manual.
Personal protective equipment is used as indicated by the safety lab manual and the
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
All procedures and safety precautions were correctly followed during construction of the
launch vehicle, testing, pre-launch preparations, and the launch.
All components were thoroughly inspected for damage or fatigue prior to any test or
launch.
In addition to the overall risk assessment matrix provided above, initial risk assessments
have been made for various possible hazards that have been identified at this stage in the project.
Severity Value (SV)
1-4 = Low Risk

4-8= Medium Risk
1-Insignificant
2-Minor
3-Moderate
4-Major
5- Catastrophic
10-25 = High
Risk
Could result in:

Insignificant
injuries, damage to
property, or
environmental
effects
Monetary Loss <
$100
Could result in:

Insignificant
injuries or
environmental
effects,
Partial failure of
non-critical system
Monetary Loss >
$100
Could result in:

Minor injuries
Moderate
environmental
effects
Failure of noncritical systems
Monetary Loss >
$500
Could result in:

Severe injuries
Reversible
environmental
effects or
Partial mission
failure
Monetary Loss >
$1,000
Could result in:

Death
Significant
environmental
damage or
Complete mission
failure
Monetary Loss >
$5,000
10
12
15
12
16
20
10
15
20
25
Likelihood
Value (LV)
1-Very Unlikely
< 1% chance it will
happen
2-Unlikey
between 1% and
15% chance
3-Moderate
between 15% and
50% chance
4-Likely
between 50% and
90% chance
5-Very Likely
> 90% chance it
will happen
Tabl e 3 7 : Ri s k As s es sment Matri x
Acknowledging the hazards now brings attention to these particular failure mechanisms
that need to be improved upon. The team can take into account these possible failures as the
design continues to evolve and will work to diminish these hazards and to identify other possible
hazards throughout the design and building phases. The risk assessment charts that follow serve
to highlight areas that the team will need focus on moving forward with the project. The
identified hazards can be found below.
Lab and Machine Shop Risk Assessment

There are risks associated with working with machinery, tools, and chemicals that the
team will need to be aware of when manufacturing the launch vehicle. The following table
addresses these hazards. The manufacturing of parts for the launch vehicle and ground support
equipment will be performed mainly on the university campus.
Hazard
Using power
tools such as
drills and
saws
Cause
Improper
training or
carelessness
when using
tools
Outcome
Minor to
severe injuries
such as cuts or
burns
Damage to
component
being worked
on or
equipment
Working
with
chemical
components
Chemical
Fumes or
splash
Minor burns or
injuries due to
skin contact or
inhalation of
chemicals
SV LV
2
2
Risk
4
Low
risk
3
Low
Risk
Mitigation
Safety gear appropriate
for each tools must be
worn when using it
Safety glasses must be
worn at all times when
in the machine shop
No untrained team
member may use
power tools unless
supervised by a trained
individual
No team member will
work alone in the
machine shop
Chemical containers
will be marked with
safety precautions
specification
MSDS documentation
will be available and
reviewed before use pf
chemical component
Appropriate protective
gear will be worn when
working with
chemicals
Work shall be
completed in a well
ventilated area
Tabl e 3 8 : Lab/ Machi ne S hop Ri s k As s es sment
AGSE Functionality Risk Assessment

The hazards outlined in the table which follows are the risks linked to all components
comprising the AGSE; including launch pad functionality, rocket erector, and ignitor installation.
Due to the high importance of a stable launch assembly, the system will be rigorously tested
prior to any launches.
Hazard
Unstable/
Un-level
Launch
Platform
Cause
Poor
Construction
Unstable
ground
Outcome
May cause an
unpredictable
rocket
trajectory
SV LV Risk
2
2
4
Low
Risk
Mitigation
Extensive testing for
stability will be done
on the AGSE before
use
May impede
rocket launch
Launch Tower
could tip over
during launch
Rocket may not
achieve a
sufficient
velocity before
exiting launch
rail, may be
damaged on
exit
Rocket gets
caught on
launch rail
Misalignment
of launch
tower joints
High friction
on launch rail
Sharp
Edges on
components
Manufacturing
stage
Rocket
Launch
causes a
Brush Fire
Dry
Launching
conditions
Arms
Buckle
under load
of rocket
Material
Failure,
Components
Jam
Material
Failure
Vehicle is
not lifted at
fast enough
rate
Poor motor
choice
Motor
Failure
Motor
breaking/Short
Ensure that everyone

is a safe distance
from Launchpad
established by NAR
rules
6
Launch tower will be
Medium inspected during set
Risk
up (included in
launch checklist)
Testing and analysis
will be performed
during building
phase to make sure
this will not be an
issue
3
Sharp edges will be,
Low
smoothened, and deRisk
burred
Minor cuts
when making,
or transporting
rocket
Small bush fire
2
Low
Risk
May cause
rocket to jam
upon exit
Launch
Platform may
not reach
required
position
AGSE will not
reach desired
launch angle
Time
requirement for
this portion of
the competition
will not be met
Rocket will not
erect and may
fall back down
3
Low
Risk
8
Medium
Risk
6
Medium
Risk
Have equipment to
extinguish fire in
hand and ready to
use
Wait until safety
range officer
determines is safe to
extinguish fire
Analysis and testing
will be performed on
configuration of
components to
ensure this will not
happen
All components will

be checked prior to
launch
Test runs of the
entire AGSE will be
performed to ensure
time limit is met
8
This will be taken
Medium into account when
Risk
to horizontal
position
Power Loss
Electrical
failure
Faulty
batteries
AGSE will not

function
4
Low
Risk
Igniter not
properly
installed in
motor
Design or set
Possible
up failure in
damage to
igniter injector rocket motor
during ignition
Loss of vehicle
15
High
Risk
developing the
AGSE further
Redundancy measure
will be implemented
Extra batteries will
be brought to launch
Batteries will be
tested prior to launch
Redundancy
measures will be
implemented
Additional
mechanism for
verification will be
installed
Verification of
proper set up of this
part of the AGSE
will be done by
multiple team
members
Tabl e 3 9 : AGS E Ri s k As s es sment Matri x
Stability and Propulsion Risk Assessment

The hazards associated with the stability and propulsion of the launch vehicle are
outlined the table that follows. The team has multiple members with certifications supporting
that the launch vehicle motors can be safely handled. In addition, key team members also have
previous high powered rocketry experience, allowing for a safe and stable launch vehicle. This
area is considered a low risk for the team, but it is still important to address any potential
problems that the team may face throughout the project.
Hazard
Motor
Fails to
Ignite
Cause
Faulty motor
Problems
with igniter
injector
system
Delayed
ignition
Faulty or
disconnected
e-match
Outcome
Rocket does not
launch or
launches at an
unpredicted time
SV LV Risk
3
2
6
Medium
Risk
Mitigation
Follow NAR safety
code
Wait appropriate
amount of time (60
seconds) before
approaching to check
ignition system
Be prepared to remove
the ignition system
from the rocket motor
Motor
Explodes
on Launch
Pad
Faulty motor
Significant
damage to the
rocket
4
Low
Risk
Rocket
does not
reach
sufficient
velocity
before
leaving
launch rail
Fins shear
during
flight
Rocket
weight to
impulse ratio
is not correct
Unstable launch
and
unpredictable
flight trajectory
3
Low
Risk
Poorly
constructed
rocket
Not enough
epoxy used to
secure fins to
the frame
Airframe
encounters
stresses over
materials
specifications
Fin are
mounted
incorrectly,
not straight
or unequally
spaced
One of the
flaps may
break
Unstable rocket,
Unpredictable
flight path
4
Low
Risk
Examine rocket fins

for any issues prior to
launch
Confirm that all
personnel are at a safe
distance during launch
Loss of rocket
Rocket becomes
severely
unstable
4
Low
Risk
Adequate material
selection that can
sustain stresses much
higher than required
Rocket severely
unstable, may
spin excessively
during flight
4
Low
Risk
Fins will be installed

with adequate
tolerances so they do
not negatively affect
flight trajectory
Severely
destabilizes
rocket
12
High
Risk
Testing and analyses

will be performed to
determine maximum
stresses caused on the
flaps
Fins tolerances will be
designed to withstand
much higher stresses
than necessary
High risk due to fact
that this concept hasnt
been tested.
Airframe
buckles
during
flight
Improperly
aligned fins
Air brake
system
causes
instability
All personal should be

at a safe distance
allowed by NAR
guidelines
Be prepared to
extinguish possible
fires caused by this
incident
Simulations on
Rocksim are run to
ensure correct motor
selection
Tabl e 4 0 : S tabi l i ty/ Propul s i on Ri s k As s es sment
Launch Day Risk Assessment

The following table outlines risks that might potentially be encountered during launch
preparations during either the competition day, or any test launched the team plans to conduct.
Hazard
Cause
Outcome
S
V
1
L
V
2
Dropping
Rocket during
transportation
Carelessness
when
handling
rocket
Minimal
damage
(scratched) to
components of
rocket
Black Powder
causes charges
to go off early
Altimeter
failure sends
an incorrect
reading
Could cause
4
serious injuries
and significant
damage to the
rocket
Parachute
Altimeter
Rocket
5
failure during
failure
reaches
decent
Not enough
ground with
Parachute does pressurization too great
not deploy
Wrongly
kinetic energy
sized
causing
parachute
damage to
Parachute gets rocket
stuck and
components
cant deploy
or dangerous
situation to
personnel.
Rocket may
fall too slowly
causing it to
drift great
distances
Risk
Mitigation
2
Rocket is designed to
Low risk be durable due to the
nature of launching
it, however careful
handling should be
practiced and will be
enforced during the
prelaunch safety
briefing
4
All electronics will
Low
be kept OFF during
Risk
preparation until last
possible moment.
5
Medium
Risk
Simulations have
been completed to
confirm that
parachutes have been
properly selected
Ground test will be
perform ion the
parachute ejection
system and on the
parachute itself to
verify that each is
working properly
Tabl e 4 1 : Launch Day Ri s k As s es sment
Environmental Hazards Risk Assessment

The hazards addressed in the table which follows are risks from the environment that
could affect the launch vehicle, or any of its components. Several of these hazards resulted in a
moderate risk level, and will remain that way for the remainder of the season. These hazards are
the exception for needing to achieve a low risk level. This is because several of these hazards are
out of the teams control, such as the weather. In the case that environmental hazards present
themselves on launch day, putting the team at a moderate risk, the launch will be delayed until a
low risk level can be achieved. The hazards that the team can control will be mitigated to attain a
low risk level.
Hazard
Weather
conditions
such as
rain or
high winds
Cause
Nature
Outcome
Damage to
electrical
components
Increased
Drifting
Launch may be
cancelled
SV LV
3
4
Risk
12
High
Risk
Trees/
Ponds/
Swamps
Launch site
proximity to
trees
Rocket may land

wrongly causing
it to get tangled
or damaged
3
Low
Risk
Extremely
Cold
Temp.
Messes with
the batteries
causing them
to discharge
more quickly
Can cause
fiberglass to
shrink
Discharged
3
batteries might
cause failure of
AGSE or
electrical
problems
causing failure in
setting up black
powder charges
3
Low
Risk
Mitigation
Weather forecast will
be checked prior to
launch and plans will
be made accordingly
Design a way to
protect electrical
components from
rain
Avoid launching at
high winds when
possible
Not to launch with
high winds that may
cause the rocket to
drift too much.
Simulations have
been completed on
Rocksim with
different wind
velocities use this
information to
determine if rocket is
safe to launch
Batteries will be
inspected prior to
launch. Extra
batteries will be
purchased and
brought to the launch
to use if necessary
Humidity
Climate
Black Powder
2
becomes moist
and fails to ignite
8
Medium
Risk
Motors will be stored

correctly in a
moisture free
environment
Tabl e 4 2 : Envi ronment al Effects Ri s k As s es sment
DESIGN FAILURE MODES

Although several failure modes were discussed in the preceding sections, the table shown
below discusses them in more detail. There are areas that the team must pay take into closer
consideration when continuing to develop the design in order to minimize their effect on the
launch vehicle.
Potential Failure
Mode
Parachute Failure
Launch Failure
Cause
Consequence
Mitigation
Parachute burns due

to ejection charge
Improper installation
of Kevlar blanket
Parachute detaches
from shock chord
Vehicle has
uncontrolled descent
leading to
catastrophic failure
Igniter fails to ignite
Motor will not

combust; rocket will
not launch
Rocket will not
launch;
Catastrophic damage
to vehicle and AGSE
Signals are not sent to
ejection charges;
of vehicle
Ejection charges do
not activate;
of vehicle
Rocket has an
undesirable
trajectory.
Ensure blanket
completely wraps
around parachute
Securely tie the
parachutes to the
shock chords;
multiple people will
check know strength
Ensure continuity;
Properly store
igniters
Proper storage of
motor
Motor explodes
Altimeter Failure
Leads break free
Altimeter runs out of

battery power
External Structural
Failure
Rail button separates

while on launch rail.
Fins break during

flight due to drag
force.
Rocket is unstable
during flight
Install thicker gauge

wire
Put a new battery in

each altimeter before
each launch; ensure
they are fully charged
Proper installation,
alignment, and
location of rail
buttons.
Use proper materials
and construction
techniques for fins.
Internal Structural
Failure
Ejection Charge
Failure
Upper electronics bay Damage to

hatch detaches in
electronics. Rocket
flight.
has unstable flight.
Construction of the
electronics bay hatch
will ensure a smooth
contour and will be
firmly attached.
Internal components
shift during initial
thrust.
Rockets center of
gravity shifts,
resulting in an
unstable flight.
Apply enough epoxy

to secure internal
components.
Couplers fail from

being too short.
Body tube
connections are
weak. Rocket breaks
apart during liftoff.
Motor Mount fails
Motor flies through

the rocket and
damages components.
Rocket flight is
unstable.
Pressure increase is
not sufficient to eject
airframe components.
Uncontrolled descent
of vehicle.
Potential damage to
internal and external
components of
vehicle
Damage to rocket due
to unforeseen forces
acting on the vehicle
Ensure couplers are

at least one tube
diameter in length to
hold the rocket
together.
Make the forward
motor mount
bulkhead thick
enough
Ejection charges fail

to ignite
Ejection charge too

large
Separation Failure
Premature separation
of rocket components
Ground ejection test
Ground ejection test
Ensure connections
are strong and do not
easily shift around
Tabl e 4 3 : Fai l ure Mode Anal ys i s
SECTION 4: AGSE CRITERIA

GROUND SUPPORT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The ground support will be considered a success if the following basic criteria are met:
1) The payload is autonomously retrieved and placed in the appropriate launch vehicle
compartment.
2) The payload compartment is autonomously closed after payload insertion.
3) The launch rail erects the launch vehicle to five degrees off vertical.
4) The ignitor is inserted into the launch vehicle engine.
5) The entire process outlined above occurs completely autonomously in under ten
minutes.
OVERALL AGSE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

The following table outlines the sequence in which the entire autonomous ground support
equipment will perform its tasks.
Sequence
0
Title
Visual Inspection
Power On - Standby
Initialization
3
4
Awaken MAV
Payload Retrieval
Payload Delivery
MAV Housing
AGSE Automation Standby

to Launch
Final Visual Inspection
Lift-off
Description
Visual inspection of the entire
system. This will ensure that
all components and
connections are safely in
place.
Give power to the AGSE.
System in standby mode.
Initializes system; automation
begins.
Rover wakes.
Rover leaves housing unit,
seeks and retrieve payload.
Rover travels up the ramp to
the platform and safely
deposits the payload in the
rocket. Rover closes payload
hatch.
Rover travels back down
ramp and into housing unit.
Rover powers down.
Linear actuator begins to
retract, propping rail and
rocket. Ignitor travels into the
rocket.
Final visual inspections to
verify all system go.
Button press we have lift
off.
Tabl e 4 4 : AGS E S equence
LAUNCH RAIL DESIGN
Fi g ure 9 8 : Launch Rai l As s embl y i n Hori zontal S tate
Fi g ure 9 9 : Launch Rai l As s embl y i n Launch Pos i ti on
The main support of the AGSE comes from a member system of machine frames and
locking system. The machine frames will be made from 6061T6 aluminum, along with three
styles of connectors that will link between the frame parts. The base dimensions itself are 9 x 3
x 1.5. The framework will be able to hold all of the working components mostly within its footprint, aside from the ramp that the rover will use to reach the launch vehicle. The width of the
platform was set to make the platform stable enough so that the launch vehicle will be impossible
tip over with conditions that would be acceptable to launch in. One of the major advantages of
this design is that the launch vehicle gets placed in the center of the AGSE before launch, giving
the launch vehicle good stability during launch.
The box in style truss structure adds stiffness to the design without adding too much
weight to the overall design. Currently, this structure weighs roughly 41 lbs. Another benefit of
the design is its ability to come apart and be put together again with screws, which enables
mobility of the system. In addition, many of the parts are being manufactured at an external
company with higher precision tools than our facilities have. The final product would have high
tolerances for the final assembly.
The following table outlines overall dimensions for the current launch rail assembly.
Dimension
Length
Width
Height
Weight
At resting position
108.00
68.81
31.86
61.47 lbs
At launch position
108.00
68.81
104.46
61.47 lbs
Tabl e 4 5 : Overal l Launch Rai l Di mens i on
Launch Rail Motion

The original, proposed launch rail design had a stationary hinge at the base of the ground
support equipment, and used a motor and gearbox to raise the rail from the initial horizontal
position to the final position of 5 degrees off vertical. The newer design uses a double connecting
rod system. The linear actuator will pull the rail towards the center of the AGSE and a secondary
support beam that is pinned further up the rail will cause the rail to move to the desired angle.
Initial Geometry Selection
The geometry of the system was selected by optimizing the positions of certain
components, and working around those. The team considered that the over which the support
beam would attach to the rail would be at the center of gravity of the rocket, shown by Ca in
the Figures 86 ad 87 below. Since the linear actuator has a specific stroke length (La in the
Figure 87), this was fixed the overall displacement of the linear actuators attachment point to the
rail. In order to avoid the support beam being horizontal at its starting position, the attachment
was placed a distance denoted by H in Figures 86 and 87 on the ground support equipment.
Using the change in the overall length in the geometry, given by L in the following images,
and the initial and final angles of the rail; the following formula was created to determine the
length of the launch vehicle supporting rail, denoted by S.
+ 2 2 = + cos(85) + 2 ( sin(85) + )2
Fi g ure 1 0 0 : Ini ti al Launch Rai l confi g urati on
Fi g ure 1 0 1 : Fi nal Launch Rai l confi g urati on
Using a computational solver, the team was able to solve for several different build
configurations in order to find the ideal configuration given the stroke length of commercially
available linear actuators. The team concluded in placing the 12 inch linear actuator along the
rail. Because the predicted center of gravity was calculated about 40 inches away from the base
of the launch vehicle, the Ca ended ups equal to 24 inches. This gave H a final value of 18
inches, which would for a large enough angle to reduce the holding stress on the beam as the
vehicle sits on it awaiting launch.
Fi g ure 1 0 2 : Launch confi g urati on
Furthermore, this configuration allows part of the launch rail to sit in between the overall
framework, lowering the overall center of gravity. This is demonstrated by the image above.
Motion and Stability Analysis
To allow for the movement of the rail, a door hanger mechanism for sliding doors will be
purchased and used as shown in blue and red in the following figure. Each door rail is rated for
200 pounds.
Fi g ure 1 0 3 : S l i di ng moti on mechani s m
The linear actuator that will be used for this application is rated to move at 0.98 in/s with
no load, and 0.78 in/s at maximum load capacity. The system will be able to fully erect the
vehicle into its final launch position in a minimum of 40 seconds. The importance of the speed at
which this movement occurs is critical for the time constraint that the AGSE has given the MAV
competition regulations. A graph of the angular velocity of the rail during its motion is shown in
the figure below.
Angular velocity of the rail (in degrees/s)

6.0000E+00
5.0000E+00
4.0000E+00
3.0000E+00
Rail_assemb-1 Angular
Velocity2 (deg/sec) Ref.
Coordinate System:
2.0000E+00
1.0000E+00
0.0000E+00
0.000
10.000
20.000
sec
30.000
40.000
Fi g ure 1 0 4 : Launch Rai l Ang ul ar Vel oci ty
To determine the stability of the platform, static equilibrium is used to determine when
the sum of the forces and moments are no longer equal to zero in every direction. For simplicity,
the center of gravity of the launch vehicle is used as the reference point for the following
calculations.
Friction force: Ff = s *N
Mcg = 0
where Ff is the friction force, s is the coefficient of static friction, N is the normal force, and Mcg
is the moment about the center of gravity. With the center of gravity being in the middle, the
smallest moment arm would be laterally.
Thus, the moment at the center of gravity of the ground support with the launch vehicle
included would be: Mcg = 100lb*(1.5ft) = 150lb*ft (approximate weight)
To be able to tip the assembly over, it is assumed that the frictional force would have to
be greater that the moment force:
150lb*ft = F*(4ft), F = 37.5 lb, approx. center of gravity of the rocket

Once the vehicle is in launch position, the only thing that would foreseeably provide an
external force to the system would be the atmosphere. If wind would generate 37.5 lbs of force
on the vehicle, the launch would not be able to safely proceed.
Ignitor Insertion and Locking
The original ground support design used a secondary beam attached to the rail that would
move along the AGSE and lock into a niche in the AGSE to keep the rail steady. The newer
design, however, uses stops and the static load of the linear actuator to keep the rail steady. The
linear actuator is rated for 400 lbs static force, which is sufficient for the application in which is
it being used. There will also be a stopper in the rail that will prevent the wheel from overextending past the desired 85 degrees, regardless of the linear actuator. This will create a
mechanical lock between the stoppers, in addition to the linear actuator that will hold the rail in
place. The supporting member of the rail will also have two side bars that will help reduce any
lateral movement that may otherwise disrupt the vehicle launch.
The ignitor insertion system consists of a repurposed motorized telescoping radio antenna
from a car. The ignitor would be attached to the end, then inserted the 24 inches up the chosen
motor in approximately 10 seconds, thereby igniting the motor.
Components
Framework
Fi g ure 1 0 5 : Framework B as e B ody
The entire framework assembly may be will able to be disassembled and reassembled for
transport, and may be placed back together with only a wrench. The ground support frame will
be manufactured using piping frame purchased from Misumi. We are using No. 28 FFAU High
Rigidity Type Piping.
Fi g ure 1 0 6 : Frami ng Pi pi ng Cros s S ecti on
The High Rigidity Type piping has a cross sectional area of 11.93 inches squared.
This will be sufficient enough to prevent any sort of buckling caused by load applied. The piping
is rated for 1/2 pound-per-foot. Since 80 feet worth of piping is required, this calculates to be
roughly 40 pounds worth of piping needed to build the frame.
Fi g ure 1 0 7 : B as i c Pi pi ng S peci fi cati ons
Ramp
Fi g ure 1 0 8 : Rover Ramp
The ramp that would allow the rover to deliver the payload to the launch vehicle before
launch is made of sheet aluminum, with a supporting structure underneath for strengthening. It is
set a 30 degree angle, which is the maximum allowable angle the integration of the rover would
allow. This angle will be experimented with to increase the speed of the rover, while retaining as
small of a footprint as possible.
Joints
The connecting piece used between the various beams are machine frame joints; they
were designed to connect and attach using the naturally high coefficient of friction of aluminum.
On the much thinner beams, the stress of the load is distributed over a large surface area rather
than a small bolt hole. In total, there are three different connecting joints being used for this
application, as can be seen in the following three images. They consist of three parts that clamp
onto the aluminum extrusions, creating the final joint.
Fi g ure 1 0 9 : Two pi ece joi nt
This joint is capable of connecting two beams together, and will be used to create the
outer truss framework of the launch rail.
Fi g ure 1 1 0 : Three pi ece joi nt
The joint pictured above will be used to connect three extruded beams together. It will be
used to connect the corners of the truss framework.
Fi g ure 1 1 1 : Arti cul ated joi nt
This is the last type of joint that will be used for this launch rail. It will be smoothed and
greased in order to reduce the coefficient of friction and the tension on the bolt. This joint will be
used to allow the rotation movement needed to erect the launch vehicle into its launch
configuration.
Telescoping Antenna
Fi g ure 1 1 2 : Repurpos ed car antenna
The process by which this antenna would insert the antenna is explained in the launch rail
motion section above.
Linear Actuator
Fi g ure 1 1 3 : PA-0 4 Li near Actuator
The planned linear actuator to be used for this application will be the one pictured above
from Progressive Automations. The PA 04 linear actuator has an IP 66 rating, and is
enclosed, allowing for both water and dust resistance from the actuators inner components.
Having dust tight enclosures on components is always beneficial to the reliability of any system.
Fi g ure 1 1 4 : PA-0 4 Li near Actuator di mens i ons
Input Voltage
Stroke
Force
Speed
Protection Class
Operational Temperature
Noise
Duty Cycle
Limit Switch
Current (full load)
Mounting Holes
Screw Type
Housing Type
Wire Length
Fully Retracted
Fully Extended
12V DC
40 inches
400 lbs
0.98"/sec (400 lbs)
IP66
26C~+65C
db<45(A)
20%
Built In, Non-Adjustable
(full load) 12 A
0.40"
ACME
Aluminum allow
60"
7.87" + 40
7.87" + 40 + 40
Tabl e 4 6 : PA-0 4 S peci fi cati ons
The member that connects the 80-20 rail to the PA-04 Linear Actuator is at a 14 degrees
incline, and it is estimate that our rocket and rail system will weigh at 50lbs at its center of
gravity. By using trigonometry, the team found that a 145 pound-force is needed to raise the
launch vehicle into its final configuration. The PA-04 Linear Actuator is rated for a 400 poundforce load, which is roughly 2.7 times more force than is required. This is gives us a safe margin,
ensuring the launch vehicle will be safely erected. The static load is rated the same as the push
load, therefore, the actuator will be able to firmly hold the launch vehicle in place.
Fi g ure 1 1 5 : 1 2 V DC, S peed vs . Load
At sequence initiation, the linear actuator is expected to be fully extended, and fully
retracted at launch. Because the PA-04 model is rated for 0.98 in/s, with a 40-inch stroke, the
team expects roughly 41 seconds of driving time.
Fi g ure 1 1 6 : 1 2 V DC, Current vs . Load
Since the heaviest force the linear actuator will experience is 145 pounds, we expect a
maximum current draw of 8 amperes.
Component CFD analysis

Several CAD simulations were run the various members in order to make sure all loads
would be safely supported. These analysis simulation may be seen in the following images.
Fi g ure 1 1 7 : Load on Mai n S upporti ng B eam
This is a simulation of the supporting member of the rail. The load would be distributed
across the beam because the door rail being used would bear the load it was rated for, and pass it
on to the supporting member underneath. For optimum safety purposes, an overestimation of 50
lbs of force from the launch vehicle was simulated on the rail. Each member would only see half
of that force, so 25 lbs was used for the static simulation. The factor of safety was about 5.5,
which is well within reason for safety.
Fi g ure 1 1 8 : S upporti ng beam buck l i ng s i mul ati on
The vertical members of the launch rail assembly would only undergo compression,
therefore a buckling simulation was conducted on these members. This simulation was run under
an overestimated load of 75 lbs for safety reasons. The results from the simulation indicated a
safe choice in member, giving a factor of safety of 3.2. Further design development could result
in the use of a high rigidity variant of this beam, where the thickness would be three times the
thickness of the current beam being used. This decision will be evaluated at a later point of the
design development.
Overall Assembly Summary
Fi g ure 1 1 9 : Top Vi ew, Ground s upport
Fi g ure 1 2 0 : S i de Vi ew, Ground s upport
Fi g ure 1 2 1 : Ground S upport As s embl y Components
Part No.
Name
Description
Weight (lbs)
Sheet Metal Ramp
Linear Actuator
10ft 80/20 Aluminum

Launch Rail
Ignition Plate
Guide Rails and

wheels
Frame
Stability Rails
8 (not pictured)
Battery
9 (not pictured)
Integrated System
TOTAL WEIGHT
A sheet metal ramp

with bracing
underneath. MAV
will travel and deliver
payload to rocket by
climbing the ramp
48-inch linear
actuator that will
retract and erect the
railing.
Rocket will sit on this
railing. Railing will
provide stability for
lift off.
Steel Plate that
protects electronics
from exhaust.
Guide rails for wheels
to travel and allows
Launch Rails
movement.
Aluminum frame
where components
are mounted to and
provides ground
clearance.
Aluminum tubes that
provide extra
stability.
Provide power to
AGSE System. 12V
20Ah
Beaglebone
Microcontroller used
to automate AGSE.
This includes various
electronics, circuits,
relays, and wiring.
42
2.5
25
15
10.5
10
120
Tabl e 4 7 : Ground S upport Component Des cri pti on
As is seen in the above table, the total weight of the system does not surpass the
maximum allowed weight of 150 lbs.
ROVER DESIGN
The payload retrieving rover will be four wheeled, servo controlled, and computer controlled by a RaspberryPi. Servos will be used to control the autonomous motion of the rover,
in addition to controlling the extendable claw used to retrieve the payload and place it in its
respective compartment. Python will be used to write the code for rover retrieval process. The
payload will be searched for by a webcam and computer vision through openCV python. After
the payload has been located by the rover, it will navigate to it and retrieve it with the claw.
The payload compartment in the launch vehicle will be marked with a specific color
combination recognizable by the rovers computer vision, thus guiding it to the correct position.
The structure of the rover will be 3D printed in order to reduce weight and add flexibility the
structures design process. The rover will have the ability to be started and paused through a
wireless connection with the Raspberry Pi.
Selected Components
RaspberryPi
Fi g ure 1 2 2 : Ras pberryPi computer
The Raspberry Pi was chosen for this project for several reasons. The RaspberryPi is a
small and versatile microcontroller. It is able to run a full version of a linux operating system due
to its embedded linux platform. In addition, this microcontroller is more geared towards video
processing, which is necessary for this given application. The advantage of working in a linux
environment is the ability to use commercially available equipment such as USB webcams,
Bluetooth, and wireless dongles. OpenCV python was chosen because it can be used natively and
without modification on the RaspberryPi.
Webcam
Fi g ure 1 2 3 : S tandard Webcam
Due to the flexible nature of the RaspberryPi, the linux operating system, and openCVpython, the team will be able to buy an ordinary USB webcam.
Wheels
To accommodate different terrains, the team has decided to use four wheels in the rover
design. Wheels with some tread will be used to providetraction while moving and retrieving the
payload.
Continuous Servos
Fi g ure 1 2 4 : Conti nuous S ervo
To actuate the wheels, continuous servos will be used instead of motors. Continuous
servos are easier to use with microcontrollers than motors. In addition, servos require
significantly less power to operate than motors. The lower power consumption allows for smaller
batteries, which alleviates overall weight. The servos we are using have a fair amount of torque
which is useful when moving the rover.
Standard Servo
Fi g ure 1 2 5 : S tandard S ervo
Regular servos will be used to actuate the claw. The webcam will be mounted on the
claw that will retrieve the payload, which will move both laterally and axially to center the
payload in the frame of the camera. Servos will also be used to actuate the gripping mechanism
that will carry the payload to the rocket. The servos are useful for this function for many of the
same reasons that justify their use to move the rover. The have low power consumption and they
are easy to use with microcontrollers.
Overall Process
The rover will be comprise of four wheels, two of which will be powered by continuous
servos. On the rover there will be a claw with a webcam will be mounted atop it. This will serve
to track and retrieve the payload. The claw will laterally and axially around the area to track the
payload. The team has written openCV code that is able to track an object and give its location
within the frame. The position of the payload will be used to move the servos on the claw and
center the payload in the middle of the frame.
While the payload is being tracked, the rover will be moving towards the payload. Once
the rover is a certain distance from the payload, it will stop and actuate the claw to pick up the
payload. Once in possession of the payload, the rover will make its way to the launch vehicle.
The launch vehicle will be marked with a color cue that will be recognized by the openCV
program. Once at the launch vehicle payload compartment, the claw will deposit the payload in
the compartment.
OpenCV Tracking Code

1. import numpy as np
2. import cv2
3.
4.
5. def run_main():
6. cap = cv2.VideoCapture('rover.mp4')
7.
8.
9. # Read the first frame of the video
10. ret, frame = cap.read()
11.
12.
13. # Set the ROI (Region of Interest).
14.
15. c,r,w,h = 900,650,70,70
16. track_window = (c,r,w,h)
17.
18.
19. # Create mask and normalized histogram
20. roi = frame[r:r+h, c:c+w]
21. hsv_roi = cv2.cvtColor(roi, cv2.COLOR_BGR2HSV)
22. mask = cv2.inRange(hsv_roi, np.array((0., 30.,32.)), np.array((180.,255.,255.)))
23. roi_hist = cv2.calcHist([hsv_roi], [0], mask, [180], [0, 180])
24. cv2.normalize(roi_hist, roi_hist, 0, 255, cv2.NORM_MINMAX)
25. term_crit = (cv2.TERM_CRITERIA_EPS | cv2.TERM_CRITERIA_COUNT, 80, 1)

26.
27.
28. while True:
29. ret, frame = cap.read()
30.
31.
32. hsv = cv2.cvtColor(frame, cv2.COLOR_BGR2HSV)
33. dst = cv2.calcBackProject([hsv], [0], roi_hist, [0,180], 1)
34.
35.
36. ret, track_window = cv2.meanShift(dst, track_window, term_crit)
37.
38.
39. x,y,w,h = track_window
40. cv2.rectangle(frame, (x,y), (x+w,y+h), 255, 2)
41. cv2.putText(frame, 'Tracked', (x-25,y-10), cv2.FONT_HERSHEY_SIMPLEX,
42. 1, (255,255,255), 2, cv2.CV_AA)
43.
44.
45. cv2.imshow('Tracking', frame)
46.
47.
48. if cv2.waitKey(1) & 0xFF == ord('q'):
49. break
50.
51.
52. cap.release()
53. cv2.destroyAllWindows()
54.
55.
56. if __name__ == "__main__":
57. run_main()
AGSE VERIFICATION
The following table outlines the rules given by the Centennial Challenge portion of the
competition, and the methods the team will use to verify each competition requirement is met.
Requirement
Number
3.3.2.1.1
Requirement
Design Feature
Verification Method
Teams will position their

launch vehicle
horizontally on the AGSE.
The launch rail of the vehicle

has been designed to start in a
horizontal position, and lift
the launch vehicle into its
final position.
The official launch controller
will house a master switch
capable of providing power to
all AGSE processes.
The continual development of

the launch rail design will
always assume a horizontal
starting position.
3.3.2.1.2
A master switch will be

activated to power on all
autonomous procedures
and subroutines.
3.3.2.1.3
All AGSEs will be

equipped with a pause
switch in the event that a
judge needs the
AGSE to be temporarily
halted for any reason. The
pause switch halts all
AGSE procedures and
subroutines. Once the
pause switch is
deactivated the AGSE
resumes operation.
All AGSE systems shall
be fully autonomous. The
3.3.3.2
The final launch controller

will house a pause switch
capable of starting and
stopping the entire
autonomous process at will.
The design of the AGSE has

been carried out such that all
The team will be aware of the

schematic needed to make sure
the master switch will be able
to perform its function
accordingly.
The team will test this switch
before competition day to
ensure it is capable of halting
all autonomous procedures.
The team will continue the

development of the AGSE as a
3.3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5.1
only human interaction

will be if the judge pauses
the AGSE.
integrated systems are fully

autonomous.
The AGSE shall be

limited to a weight of 150
pounds or less and volume
of 12 feet in height x
12 feet in length x 10 feet
in width.
3.4.1.1 As one of the goals
of this competition is to
develop equipment,
processes, and
technologies that could be
implemented in a Martian
environment, the AGSE
and any related
technology cannot employ
processes that would not
work in such
environments.
Therefore, prohibited
technologies include:
3.3.4.1.2 Sensors that rely
on Earths magnetic field
3.3.4.1.3 Ultrasonic or
other sound-based sensors
3.3.4.1.4 Earth-based or
Earth orbit-based radio
aids (e.g. GPS, VOR, cell
phone).
3.3.4.1.5 Open circuit
pneumatics
3.3.4.1.6 Air breathing
systems
Each launch vehicle must
have the space to contain
a cylindrical payload
approximately 3/4 inch
inner diameter and 4.75
inches in length. The
payload will be made of
x 3 inch
The current design has been

developed taking into account
the limit in volume and
weight provided by this
metric.
fully autonomous system. The

system will be tested before the
competition day to make sure
all systems have been
integrated properly.
The team will keep this
limitation in mind if any
changes are applied to the
current AGSE design.
The current AGSE design has

none of the prohibited
components outlines by the
competition rules.
Any alteration in the current

AGSE design will be done
without any of the technology
prohibited by this requirement.
The payload bay designed for

the launch vehicle has been
dimensioned such that the
payload to be provided by the
competition will fit
comfortably in the
compartment designed for it.
The team will make sure any

changes in this compartment
are done in accordance with
the payload dimensions
provided by this requirement.
3.3.5.2
3.3.5.3
3.3.5.4
3.3.5.5
Schedule 40 PVC tubing

filled primarily with sand
and may include BBs,
weighing approximately 4
ounces and capped with
domed PVC end caps.
Each launch vehicle must
be able to seal the payload
containment area
autonomously prior to
launch.
A diagram of the payload
and a sample payload will
be provided to each team
at time of acceptance into
the competition. In
addition, Teams may
construct practice
payloads according to the
above specifications;
however, each team will
be required to use a
regulation payload
provided to them on
launch day.
The payload will not
contain any hooks or other
means to grab it.
The payload shall be
placed a minimum of 12
inches away from the
AGSE and outer mold line
of the launch vehicle in
the launch area for
insertion, when placed in
the horizontal position on
the AGSE and will beat
the discretion of the team
as long as it meets the
minimum placement
requirements.
Gravity-assist shall not be
used to place the payload
within the rocket.
The team will construct

practice payloads in
accordance with the
dimensions given for the
payload by the competition
rules.
The practice payloads will be

used to test the process of
payload insertion into the
launch vehicle. This process
will be tested multiple times
for optimum efficiency.
The practice payload will not

have any means to ease its
ability to be grabbed.
The method of obtaining and
inserting the payload will be
designed such that the
autonomous process may be
retrieved at a minimum
distance of 12 inches away
from the AGSE.
The team has no plans to use

any hooks to practice grabbing
the payload.
The team will run practice runs
of the autonomous system to
ensure a minimum distance of
12 inches may be successfully
achieved.
The current payload insertion

method will not use any form
of gravity assist.
The team has no plans to

include gravity assist as a
method of insertion for the
payload.
3.3.5.6
3.3.6.1.1-2
3.3.6.1.3
3.3.6.1.4
Each team will be given

10 minutes to
autonomously capture,
place, and seal the
payload within their
rocket, and erect the
rocket to a vertical launch
position five degrees off
vertical. Insertion of
igniter and activation for
launch are also included in
this time.
These requirements were
covered in sections
3.3.2.1-2
A safety light that
indicates that the AGSE
power is turned on. The
light must be
amber/orange in color. It
will flash at a frequency
of 1 Hz when the AGSE is
powered on, and will be
solid in color when the
AGSE is paused while
power is still supplied.
An all systems go light to
verify all systems have
passed safety verifications
and the rocket system is
ready to launch.
Design measures are being

taken so that the payload
retrieval and launch rail
systems take place under the
competition delegated time.
The entire integrated system

will be tested and timed so the
10 minute requirement is not
exceeded.
The safety light will be

visibly incorporated on the
side of the launch rail to show
that power is being delivered
to the system.
This light function will be

tested with the entire AGSE
assembly to test functionality.
A green light will be visibly

incorporated onto the side of
the launch rail. This light will
turn on when the master
arming switch is activated.
The functionality of the light

will be tested to ensure proper
functionality.
Tabl e 4 8 : AGS E Veri fi cati on
SECTION 5: PROJECT PLAN

BUDGET PLAN
Launch Vehicle
Cost Break Down

Nosecone section
4%
Other
11%
Parachute Bay
16%
Payload
4%
Propulsion Bay
33%
Electronics Bay
28%
AirBarke System
4%
Nosecone section
Parachute Bay
Electronics Bay
AirBarke System
Propulsion Bay
Payload
Other
Fi g ure 1 2 6 : Launch Vehi cl e Cos t Chart
Tabl e 4 9 : Comprehens i ve Launch Vehi cl e B udg et
AGSE
AGSE Budget
AGSE, 85%
Rover
AGSE
Fi g ure 1 2 7 : AGS E B udg et Chart
Tabl e 5 0 : Comprehens i ve AGS E B udg et
FUNDING PLAN
For the 2016-2017 NASA USLI Competition, the team plans on raising funds from both
local and national contributors.
The team will call, or personally visit, different types of engineering companies and firms
and present them our funding proposal. The team hopes to foster a sponsorship between FIU and
these companies by showcasing our ideas. This, in turn, will further FIUs relationship with
various STEM employers located in South Florida, as well as increasing exposure of these
companies.
On campus, the team will display last years competition launch vehicle in a zone with
heavy foot traffic. This will inspire students and awaken their curiosity in rocketry and of the
building process involved in making a functioning launch vehicle. The team will have
conversations with these students and answer all the questions they have; and hopes that by
educating the student body at FIU, they will be more susceptible to contributing towards this
project. The team also plans on 3D printing charms and keychains for fundraising for this
competition.
ASME has grants and opportunities for teams that take on projects such as NASA USLI.
The team will write a proposal and submit an application for these grants. FIU also has grants
that the team will apply for as the well.
In the past, the local community has been supportive of ASME and the PantherWorks
Space team. By outreaching to the local public schools, (see Educational Plan and Engagement)
the team hopes to generate enough public interest for contributions.
Web presence is a pivotal part of fundraising. The team has begun creating a social media
(Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, etc.) and a GoFundMe and Kickstarter. By presenting a proposal,
the team looks forward to generating support from people around the nation. The team will also
post up images and tutorials showing the different techniques used in making this years
competition launch vehicle.
TIMELINE
The development of a timeline for the project is imperative to the overall success of the
launch vehicle. Without a clear plan of action, the team will have no definite direction on what
needs to be accomplished next. A timeline provides a form of accountability for the team,
allowing all members the opportunity to be aware of what tasks need to be accomplished by what
time. Two separate timelines are included in this report, a general timeline developed for the
entire scope of the project, and a detailed timeline developed for the purpose of the preliminary
and critical design reviews. As the overall design continues to mature, more details may be
added to the timeline. In addition, further deadlines will be added as for the flight readiness
review as critical design review nears. These references may be found in Appendix B.
EDUCATIONAL ENGAGEMENT
The PantherWorks Space team strives for educational outreach. The team strongly
believes that by educating the generations that come after us, the team is also encouraging a
better and brighter future.
The goal of the PantherWorks Space team is to teach middle school aged students the
basics of rocketry; and potentially interest them in pursuing a career in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics. The area around Florida International University has many middle
schools with minority students that would not normally pursue higher education. With that in
mind, the team has partnered with FIUs new community outreach called Engineers on
Wheels. This program was created with the intent of providing local K-12 students with fun and
interactive presentations on varying fields of engineering.
This years Education Engagement Plan focuses on the team visiting surrounding public
schools and give a simple lecture on the basics of rocketry. The team will focus on the
Newtonian motion of rockets and explain the different forces, that a launch vehicle would
experience in flight. The team will also encourage the students to come up and brainstorm
different ideas for propellants, aerospace structures, and methods of launch by asking different
questions in a group discussion. This will engage the students and have them share their
creativity.
Once the lecture is done, the team will introduce a Build-A-Rocket workshop, where
the students will design their own launch vehicle out of a 2-Liter bottle and construction paper.
Once done, they will be launched by compressing water in the 2-Liter bottle with a bike pump.
For older students, the team will present last years competition launch vehicle, show them the
various techniques the team used to manufacture it, and have a basic presentation on rocketry.
Afterwards the team will have a workshop where the students make paper airplanes and have a
competition to see which model traveled the furthest (this will help students visualize how
different geometric shapes have different aero properties).
Each visit at a school will last for three hours. One visit has already been successfully
conducted, and two more are planned for this year. Another three visits will be conducted before
the competition as well.
SECTION 6: APPENDICES
Appendix A Stability Analysis Graphs
5 MPH WIND
Fi g ure 1 2 8 : CG/ CP vs . Ti me, 5 -mph wi nd
Fi g ure 1 2 9 : S tati c Marg i n vs . Ti me, 5 -mph wi nd
Fi g ure 1 3 0 : Al ti tude vs . Ti me, 5 -mph wi nd
Fi g ure 1 3 1 : Rang e (Dri ft) vs . Ti me, 5 -mph s peed
Fi g ure 1 3 2 : Mach Number vs . Ti me, 5 -mph wi nd
10 MPH WIND
Fi g ure 1 3 3 : CG/ CP vs . Ti me, 1 0 -mph wi nd
Fi g ure 1 3 4 : S tati c Marg i n vs . Ti me, 1 0 -mph wi nd
Fi g ure 1 3 5 : Al ti tude vs . Ti me, 1 0 -mph wi nd
Fi g ure 1 3 6 : Rang e (Dri ft) vs . Ti me, 1 0 -mph wi nd
Fi g ure 1 3 7 : Mach Number vs . Ti me, 1 0 -mph
15 MPH WIND
Fi g ure 1 4 1 : Rang e (Dri ft) vs . Ti me, 1 5 -mph
Fi g ure 1 4 2 : Mach Number vs . Ti me, 1 5 -mph wi nd
20 MPH WIND
Fi g ure 1 4 6 : Rang e (Dri ft) vs . Ti me, 2 0 -mph
Fi g ure 1 4 7 : Mach Number vs . Ti me, 2 0 -mph wi nd
Appendix B Timelines
GENERAL TIMELINE
DETAILED PDR/CDR TIMELINE

Fiu NSL PDR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fiu NSL PDR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NASA University Student Launch Initiative

2015-2016 Preliminary Design Report for MAV

Team Summary .................................................................................................................. 12

Launch Vehicle Summary .............................................................................................. 12

AGSE/Payload Summary ............................................................................................... 12

Section 2: Changes Made Since Proposal ..................................................................................... 13

Vehicle Criteria Changes ................................................................................................... 13

AGSE Criteria Changes.................................................................................................. 14

Project Plan Changes ...................................................................................................... 14

Section 3: Vehicle Criteria ............................................................................................................ 15

Launch Vehicle Design ...................................................................................................... 15

Recovery Subsystem ...................................................................................................... 50

AirBrake Subsystem ....................................................................................................... 59

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 2

Mission Performance Predictions................................................................................... 88

Mission Performance Criteria ............................................................................................... 88

Interfaces and Integration ............................................................................................. 100

Safety ............................................................................................................................ 104

Safety Officer ...................................................................................................................... 104

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 3

Funding Plan ....................................................................................................................... 148

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 4

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 5

Table 35: Descent Rate Energy Calculation ............................................................................... 100

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 6

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 7

Figure 35: Propulsion Bay ............................................................................................................ 41

Figure 70: Airbrake Flap section cut............................................................................................. 72

Figure 106: Framing Piping Cross Section ................................................................................. 125

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 11

SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF PDR REPORT

Florida International University

Launch Vehicle Summary

Tabl e 1 : Launch Vehi cl e Overvi ew

III. AGSE/Payload Summary

Tabl e 2 : Overal l Ground S upport Di mens i ons

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 12

SECTION 2: CHANGES MADE SINCE PROPOSAL

Motor selection has been changed from a Cesaroni 3300L3200 P to a Cesaroni

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 13

AGSE Criteria Changes

The basic overall structure has been changed.

III. Project Plan Changes

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 14

SECTION 3: VEHICLE CRITERIA

FIU ASME will design and

FIU ASME wishes to

FIU ASME will follow and

FIU ASME wishes to protect

FIU ASME will conduct a

FIU ASME wishes to verify

FIU ASME will complete a

FIU ASME will contact

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 15

designed and ensure that the

location and time of test

Tabl e 3 : B as i c Mi s s i on Veri fi cati on Metri cs

MISSION SUCCESS CRITERIA

DESIGN OF LAUNCH VEHICLE

Fi g ure 1 : Overal l Launch Vehi cl e As s embl y

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 16

Fi g ure 2 : Overal l Vehi cl e Confi g urati on

PantherWorks Space Team | 2015 2016 NASA USLI PDR | 17