critical design review 02/02/ 2012 project phoenix 2011-2012 the pennsylvania state university

29
Critical Design Review 02/02/ 2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University 1

Upload: boyce

Post on 24-Feb-2016

41 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Critical Design Review 02/02/ 2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University. Presenters. Russell Moore – Project Manager Brian Taylor – Systems Engineer Matt Hanna – Structures & Aerodynamics Lead Tony Maurer – Structures & Aerodynamics Lead - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

1

Critical Design Review02/02/ 2012

Project Phoenix 2011-2012The Pennsylvania State University

Page 2: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

2

• Russell Moore – Project Manager• Brian Taylor – Systems Engineer• Matt Hanna – Structures & Aerodynamics Lead• Tony Maurer – Structures & Aerodynamics Lead• Heather Dawe – Propulsion Lead• Rob Algazi – Propulsion Lead• Adam Covino – Payload Lead• Brian Lani – Payload Lead• Eric Gilligan – Avionics & Recovery Lead• Lawrence Digirolamo – Avionics & Recovery Lead• Tom Letarte – Safety Officer

Presenters

Page 3: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

3

• Overview• Structures & Aerodynamics• Avionics & Recovery• Propulsion• Payload• Safety and Quality Assurance• Outreach• Conclusion

Discussion Topics

Page 4: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

4

• Rocket is 92.2” in length, 4.5” in diameter (OD)- 4.375” (ID)- and weighs 29 lbs.

• Uses machined fin brackets, motor retainer and tail cone. • Recovery System is Single Ejection (CO2)/Dual Deployment

Overview (Project/Vehicle)

Page 5: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

5

Fin Bracket

• Allows for easy replacement of damaged fins

• Allows experimentation of fin design (to alter the CP and therefore Static Stability)

• CNC machined aluminum– No epoxy or other permanent

bond• Screws into fin and through

body tube

Page 6: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

6

Motor Retainer

• Machined Aluminum forward motor retainer

• Attaches to motor casing

• Screwed into airframe– No epoxy or other

permanent bonds• Acts as an Av bay aft

bulk plate

Page 7: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

7

Tail Cone

• CNC machined aluminum aft motor retainer

• Reduces drag up to 50% for subsonic flight [1]

• Threads onto aft of booster section– No epoxy or other permanent

bonds• Opens up more room in

airframe

Page 8: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

8

Structures

• Rocket Flight Static Stability– 1.4

• Current Simulated Mass: 29.3 pounds

• Mass Margin: 2.6 pounds• Predicted Drift

Predicted drift as a function of wind speed for the current mass estimate (483 ounces).

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 220

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

425

930

1480

2425

Wind Speed (mph)

Pred

icted

Drift

(ft)

Page 9: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

9

• Motor choice: AMW L777

• Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5.96 (average)

• Rail exit velocity: 55.25 ft/s

Propulsion

Page 10: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

10

Full Scale Motor: Animal Works L777 (75mm)• Determined By Open Rocket Models

Propulsion

Page 11: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

11

Sub-Scale Motor: Aerotech J315 (54mm)• Determined By Open Rocket Models

Propulsion

Page 12: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

12

Full Scale Contingency Motor: Cesaroni L935

Propulsion

Page 13: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

13

Full Scale Contingency Motor: Cesaroni L935

Propulsion

Page 14: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

14

– Main Parachute: Fruity Chutes 84” Iris Ultra– Drogue Parachute: Rocketman 3’ Ballistic Mach II Chute– Recovery Harness: 50’ of ½” tubular Kevlar– Altimeters: 2x PerfectFlite StratoLogger– Down-body Camera: PD80– Recovery Aids:• Garmin Astro DC-20 GPS System• BeepX Sonic Beacon

Avionics & Recovery

Page 15: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

15

Sled and Bay Design

Avionics & Recovery

BeepX Sonic BeaconAltimeters

BeepX 12V 23A Battery

CO2 Canister

9V BatteryHolders

BP Ejection Canister

CD3 EjectionSystem

Switches

Note: Aft Bulkhead is actually an aluminum bulkhead that interfaces with the motor casing and screws into the airframe

Page 16: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

16

–Apogee• CD3 CO2 ejection device• Black powder ejection charge• Drogue is released and main is held within the airframe by the main parachute containment harness.

–750 ft AGL• Tender Descender releases the main and the drogue pulls it out of the airframe and deployment bag

Avionics & Recovery

Page 17: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

– Descent Rate• 64 ft/s under drogue• 15 ft/s under main

– Kinetic Energy• Booster Section: 73.8 ft-lbs• Nosecone/Payload: 15.6 ft-lbs

Avionics & Recovery

Page 18: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

18

– Altimeter test• Tested functionality of altimeters and ability to fire e-matches

– CD3 independent test• Tested stand-alone functionality of CD3 system

– Sub-scale ground test• Tested the ability of the CD3 system to eject the nosecone

Avionics & Recovery

Page 19: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

PayloadNASA SMD Mission Payload:• Measure atmospheric parameters• Will collect following data:– Pressure– Temperature– Relative Humidity– Solar Irradiance– Ultra-violet Radiation

Page 20: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

Payload

Name Model QuantityUltra-Violet Light Sensor SU-110 2

Logomatic v2 Serial SD Datalogger WIG-10216 2Arduino Pro 3.3V/ 8Mhz DEV-09221 2

Polymer Lithium Ion Battery - 2000mAh PRT-08483 2XBee Pro 900 XSC Wire Antenna WRL-09085 1

4GB microSD Card SDSDQ-4096-E11M 2High Altitude Sensing Board SEN-09944 2

~Ambient Light Sensor TEMT-6000 2~Humidity Sensor HIH-4030 2~Pressure Sensor BMP-085 2~Accelerometer ADXl345 2

~Temperature Sensor TMP-102 2

Arduino Control

Data Logger

Power Supply

HASB

Light Sensor

Arduino Control

Data Logger

Power Supply

HASB

Light Sensor

900MHz Transmitter

Page 21: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

Payload

Page 22: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

PayloadScientific Value:• Analyze collected information to

profile atmospheric boundary layer

• Determine stability and depth of atmospheric boundary layer

• Construct a Skew-T diagram of the boundary layer as visual aid to determine weather severity [www.met.psu.edu]

Page 23: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

23

• CO2 Canisters for CD3 System– Manufactured to

UL1191 Standard– Burst pressure:

7000psi– 75% Fill– 30 min @ 100 ⁰C,

15min @ 150 ⁰C

Safety & Quality AssurancePressure vs %Fill for varying Temperature

Page 24: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

24

Safety & Quality Assurance

Subsystem Component Verification Test

Structures

Shear Pins Ground Testing (Feb.)

Forward Motor Retainer

Static Fire (Feb.)

Avionics & Recovery Recovery System Ground Testing (Feb.)

Propulsion Motor Static Fire (Feb.)

Page 25: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

25

• Verification Testing as in explained in Appendix D: Test Matrix (February)

• MDRA Launch (March 10-11)• METRA Launch (March 24)• FRR (March 26)

Upcoming Milestones

Page 26: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

26

• Discovery Space Museum Workshops– January 27, February 8 & 22, March 21

• Spikes Fest– February 12

• Park Forest Middle School STEM Fair– March 14

Educational Engagement

Page 27: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

27

Section TotalFull Scale $ 4,546.23 Subscale $ 2,612.09 Testing $ 1,040.66 Ground Support Equipment $ 2,461.91 Travel $ 3,815.00 Outreach $ 248.98 Total $ 14,724.87

Expenses

Subsystem TotalStructures & Aerodynamics $ 1,853.99 Avionics & Recovery $ 975.31 Payload $ 1,266.93 Propulsion $ 450.00 Total $ 4,546.23

Overall Club Expenses Full Scale Rocket Expenses by Subsystem

Page 28: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

28

Conclusion

• Tests show that rocket is structurally sound and ejection/internal circuitry works.

• Further testing for drogue parachute size, landing radius distance, and motor performance.

Page 29: Critical Design Review 02/02/  2012 Project Phoenix 2011-2012 The Pennsylvania State University

29

[1] Fleeman, l.E., Tactical Missile Design – Second Edition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., VA 2006[2] www.fruitychutes.com[3] www.apogeerockets.com[4] www.met.psu.edu[5] www.wildmanrocketry.com[6] www.pro38.com[7] www.giantleaprocketry.com[8] www.eurorocketry.org

References