Critical Design ReviewJanuary 26, 2018
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
3801 W. Temple Ave,
Pomona, CA 91768
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 2
o Competition Week Attendees
o Major Changes from PDR
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 3
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 4
Competition Week Attendees2017-2018 Cal Poly Pomona NASA
Student Launch Initiative
Educator Administrators
Advisor
Donald Edberg, PhD
Mentor
Todd Coburn, PhD
L2 TRA Mentor
Rick Maschek
Lead Engineer
Casey
Aerodynamics
Aerodynamics Lead
Daniel R.
Ryan
Andrew
Verenice
Mauricio
Vanessa
Daniel A.
Structures
Structures Lead
Edgar
Kevin
Priya
Cory
Isaac
Jehosafat
Leara
Payload
Payload Lead
Richard
Juan
Ricardo
Praneeth
Courtney
Deputy, Systems Engineer
Megan
Safety Officer
Natalie
Changes Made Since PDR
Criteria Changes Made
Vehicle SizeOverall length increased from 7 ft-9
in to 8 ft-5 in
Vehicle MassOverall mass decreased from 46 lb
to 43.7 lb
Nose Cone
Material changed from PLA and
fiberglass reinforcement to PLA
only.
Fin
Material changed from PLA and
fiberglass reinforcement to PLA
only.
Criteria Changes Made
Recovery GPS
Redundancy added for GPS;
Trackimo GPS has been added in
addition to the Eggfinder
Drogue Parachute Size changed to 4 ft2
Main ParachuteDeployment altitude changed from
500 ft to 600 ft.
Motor Selection
Motor has changed from a
Cesaroni L1115 to an Aerotech
L1420R
• Vehicle Criteria Changes
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 5
Changes Made Since PDR
Criteria Changes Made
GPS Module
Adafruit module replaced by the Eggfinder
system; Adafruit transceivers replaced by
XBee modules.
Payload Observation Avionics
Live video feed and camera eliminated: The
ground station will now consist of a laptop
with the Eggfinder RX and the ground XBee
both connected independent from one
another via USB.
• Payload Criteria Changes
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 6
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 7
o Final Launch Vehicle: Dimensions
o Final Launch Vehicle: Full Configuration
o Mass Statement and Mass Margin
o Key Design Features: Hollowed Bulkhead
o Key Design Features: Plug
o Key Design Features: Recovery Avionics Bay
o Key Design Features: Fin Integration
o Final Motor Choice and Justification
Agenda
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 8
Final Launch Vehicle: Dimensions
● 3 Independent sections known as Modules
○ Module 1 : Nose cone, Payload Bay
○ Module 2 : Recovery system
○ Module 3 : Observation Bay and Motor Bay
● Total Length of Launch Vehicle: 101 in. (8 ft-5in)
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 9
Final Launch Vehicle: Full Configuration
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 10
Mass Statement and Mass Margin
● Total Mass of Launch vehicle
○ At Lift off: W = 43.7 lb
○ At Burnout: W = 38.1 lb
● Mass Margin
○ Desirable Altitude
■ Lift off weight between 43 lb and 52 lb
○ Desired Flight Stability
■ Payload must not exceed 5 lb and implement a 10% ballast
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 11
Key Design Features: Hollowed Bulkhead
● Located and epoxied to the
end of the Payload Bay
● Provides an opening for
DERIC Rover to exit
● Attached to main parachute
shock cord via Zinc-plated
Steel U-bolt
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 12
Key Design Features: Hollowed Bulkhead
● Manufactured using ¾’’
Birch Plywood and
sandwiched between two
0.032’’ 7075-T6 Al sheets
● Al sheets provide greater load
capabilities after main main
parachute deployment
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 13
Key Design Features: Plug
● Fitted to cover hollowed
bulkhead opening
○ Creates pressure seal for
main parachute deployment
○ Protects payload from
deployment charge debris
● Gets pulled off with main
parachute deployment by
attaching routing eye-bolt to
shock cord line
● Manufactured by 3-D printer
using PLA material
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 14
Key Design Features: Recovery Avionics Bay
• Made of Blue Tube 2.0 coupler• 12 in. length• OD:5.976in• ID: 5.835in• Enclosed by two ¾’’ Birch plywood
bulkheads• Two ½’’ holes will be created through
the collar to fit exterior controlled switches
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 15
Key Design Features: Recovery Avionics Bay
● Avionics plate
made of thin
plywood will hold
altimeters
● Two threaded rods
will hold avionics
plate in place
during flight
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 16
Key Design Feature: Fin Integration
• Consists of 3 fins, 4 centering rings, and 6 bolts
• Body Tube shrouds and protects Fin Integration System
• Allows for fast and easy replacement of fins
• Broken fins do not ground the launch vehicle
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 17
Key Design Feature: Fin Integration
• Centering rings at the end are fixed with bolts, middle centering rings are friction fit
• Bolts ensure a secure connection
• Fins can be replaced in under 5 minutes
• Less time repairing = More time flying
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 18
Final Motor Selection and Justification
Aerotech L1420 Performance Parameters:
Average Thrust: 319.23 lbfMaximum Thrust: 407.80 lbfTotal Impulse : 1034.80 lbf-sBurn Time: 3.2 secondsISP: 183 seconds
Aerotech L1420 Thrust Curve
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 19
Final Motor Selection and Justification
Aerotech L1420 enabled:• Cost Savings:
• From $458 -> $208• Savings Factor: Aerotech
Casing available on site
• Satisfies Apogee Requirement (5331-5507 ft.)
• Satisfies Rail Exit Velocity Requirement (60.5 ft/s)
Aerotech L1420 Thrust Curve
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 20
Final Motor Selection and Justification
• Apogee Simulations:
• OpenRocket: (5331-5507 ft.) from 0 to 20 mph winds
• MATLAB: 5745 ft.
• Difference (%): 2.38%
• Allows 0-10% ballast to further refine the altitude
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 21
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 22
o Rocket Flight Stability in Stability Margin Diagram
o Thrust-to-Weight Ratio and Rail Exit Velocity
Agenda
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 23
Center of Gravity
Center of Gravity
(OpenRocket)
62.695 Inches
Center of Gravity
(Hand Calculations)
63.52 Inches
Percent Difference 1.31%
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 24
Center of Pressure
Center of Pressure
(OpenRocket)
78.014 Inches
Center of Pressure
(Hand Calculation)
77.32 Inches
Percent Difference .89%
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 25
Stability Margin
Stability Margin
(OpenRocket)
2.62 Calipers
Stability Margin
(Hand Calculation)
2.24 Calipers
Percent Difference 14.5 %
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 26
Launch Vehicle Performance
● Thrust-to-Weight ratio
○ T / W = 7.3
● Rail Exit Velocity based on MGLOW = 43.7 lb
○ Using the 8 ft. 1515 rail: V = 60.7 ft/s
○ Using the 12 ft. 1515 rail: V = 75.1 ft/s
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 27
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 28
o Parachute Overview
o Parachute Sizes
o Recovery Harness
o Recovery Avionics: Altimeters
o Recovery Avionics: Ejection Charge
o Recovery Avionics: GPS
Agenda
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 29
Parachute Overview
Main Drogue
• Toroidal design• Manufactured by Fruity Chutes• Packing Volume: 199.9 ft3
• Weight: 3 lbs.• 400 lb. paraline
• Cruciform design• Manufactured in-house• Packing Volume: 56.5 ft3
• Weight: 1 lb.• 400 lb. paraline
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 30
Parachute Sizes
Main Drogue
• Diameter: 10 ft.
• Spill Hole Diameter: 1.77 ft.
• Aeff = ~80 ft2
• Cd of 2.2
• Gores: 34 in. x 10 in
• Aeff = 4 ft2
• Cd of 0.6
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 31
Recovery Harness
• ¼ in. Kevlar shock cord rated at 2200 lbs
• Measuring 30 ft each for both parachutes
• Attached using ⅜ in. steel quick links for main and ¼ in. steel quick links for the drogue
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 32
Recovery Avionics: Altimeters
● Two (2) PerfectFlite Stratologger CF altimeters will be
used for Drogue and Main parachute deployment
● Redundancy established using two separate altimeters
● Each will run on 9V batteries
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 33
Altimeter Specifications
StratologgerCF● Main chute deployment range from 100 to 9,999 feet in 1 foot demarcations
● Drogue Chute Deployment at Apogee
● Stores 16 eighteen minute flights
● 5 Amp output current
● Altitude, Temperature, Power Supply voltage data collection
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 34
Parachute Deployment Figures
Stratologger 1 Stratologger 2
Drogue Deployment At Apogee (5,280 ft) 2 seconds after Apogee
Main Deployment 600 ft 500 ft
● Each altimeter will be programmed with different main chute
deployment values
● In the case of main altimeter failure, the redundant altimeter
will deploy the drogue/main chute(s)
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 35
Recovery Avionics: Ejection Charge
• There are a total of 4 charges located on rocket• 2 for the Drogue Parachute• 2 for the Main Parachute
• 4F Black Powder will be used• Charge sized calculated taking into account changes
in bay size• Calculations will be verified using ground tests.
Charges will be optimized to ensure proper ejection• Ignition method : E match
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 36
Recovery Avionics: GPS
● Two GPS systems (Eggfinder and Trackimo) will be utilized
● Varying frequencies allow for additional redundancies in rocket
recovery
● Immediate uplink of data to ground command module with
integrated hardware
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 37
GPS Specifications
Eggfinder● 9 Volt power supply
● 8.2 ft accuracy
● 900 Mhz transmitting
● Range of 8000 ft
Trackimo● Rechargeable LiPo Battery
● 50 ft accuracy
● 850/900/1800/1900 MHz transmitting
● Unlimited Range with cell service
permitting
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 38
GPS Data Pathways
Eggfinder Trackimo
● Two separate location data pathways ensure higher success rate in recovery
as a failure of one system will not affect the alternative
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 39
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 40
o Descent Rates
o Kinetic Energy at Key Phases
o Drift Predictions from Launch Pad
Agenda
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 41
Descent Rates
• Descent Rate From Apogee to Main Deployment (when drogue is deployed) = 120 ft/s
• Descent Rate from Main Deployment to Touch Down = 14 ft/s
• Total time spent in air = 81.9 seconds
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 42
Kinetic Energy at Key Phases
• Max Kinetic Energy and Kinetic Energy at touchdown identified• Requirement 3.3 satisfied
Phase
KE of Nose Cone +
Payload Fairing
(0.247 slugs)
(ft-lbs)
KE of Main/Drogue
Bay + Recovery Bay
(0.291 slugs)
(ft-lbs)
KE of Observation
Bay + Motor Bay
(0.508 slugs+0.314
slugs for prop mass)
(ft-lbs)
Total Kinetic Energy
(ft-lbs)
Rail Exit (60.7 ft/s) 455.2 536.5 1515 2506.7
Apogee (0 ft/s) 0 0 0 0
Drogue Deployment
(120 ft/s)1779 2097 3661 737
Main Deployment &
Touchdown (14 ft/s)24.2 28.5 49.8 102.5
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 43
Drift Calculations
• To address concerns and meet the drift radius requirement, the main will now deploy at 600 ft (with backup charge at 500 ft).
• New descent rates = 120 ft/s with drogue deployed & 14 ft/s with main deployed
• Drift distance can be minimized further because main deployment velocity is conservative
Wind Velocity (mph) Drift Distance (ft)
0 0
5 624
10 1248
15 1873
20 2497
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 44
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 45
o Test Plan Matrix
o Safety Plan
Agenda
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 46
Test Plan Matrix
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 47
Test Plan Matrix
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 48
Test Plan Matrix
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 49
Test Plan Matrix
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 50
Test Plan Matrix
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 51
Test Plan Matrix
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 52
Safety Plan
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 53
Safety PlanSafety Plan
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 54
Safety PlanSafety Plan
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 55
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 56
o Subscale Vehicle Overview
o Subscale Launch Vehicle Scaling
o Subscale Flight Results
o Predicted vs True
o Subscale Lessons Learned
Agenda
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 57
Subscale Vehicle Overview
• Scaling and Layout
• Flight Results
• Prediction Comparisons
• Lessons Learned
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 58
Subscale: Scaling and Layout
Geometric Scaling Factor - 1:2 Scale (B.T. Diameter)
Launch Vehicle
CharacteristicsFull-Scale Sub-Scale
Scaling Factor (Sub-
Scale/Full-Scale)
Body Tube Diameter
(in.)6.0 3.0 0.500
Overall Length (in.) 101 58 0.574
Overall Mass (lbs.) 43.7 7.84 0.178
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 59
Subscale: Scaling and Layout
Goals for Subscale
• Test flight electronics to be used in full scale
• Test scaled down recovery system
• Show rocket geometry and stability perform well in flight
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 60
Subscale: Scaling and Layout
Electronic
Component
Full-Scale
Usage
Sub-Scale
Usage
Raspberry Pi w/
Camera moduleYes Yes
EGGFINDER GPS Yes Yes
Stratologger CF
AltimeterYes (2) Yes (1)
Flight Electronics
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 61
Subscale: Scaling and Layout
Recovery System
F.S.
S.S.
Main Altimeter
Drogue
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 62
Subscale: Scaling and Layout
F.S.
S.S.
Characteristic Full-Scale Sub-Scale
Stability 2.62 Caliber 2.59 Caliber
Fins NACA 0008 Clipped Delta (Removable) NACA 0008 Clipped Delta (Removable)
Nose Cone Von-Karman Von-Karman
Geometry and Stability
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 63
Subscale Flight Results
● Flight data provided by two altimeters
● Apogee = 4313 feet
● Launch Conditions: cloudy skies, 59 degrees Fahrenheit, average wind speed of 16 mph
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 64
Predicted and Actual Flight Data
● Initial drag coefficient for subscale was 0.49
● Obtained from OpenRocketsimulations using launch day conditions
● Altitude predicted with MATLAB
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 65
Predicted and Actual Fight Data
● Drag coefficient of 0.64 obtained from flight data using MATLAB
● Altitude predicted with MATLAB
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 66
Calculated Drag Coefficients
Subscale Model Full Scale Model
OpenRocket 0.49 0.45
MATLAB 0.64 0.59
Error 30.6% 30.6%
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 67
Subscale Model: Lessons Learned
● MATLAB program assumes vertical flight and does not
simulate launch day conditions
● OpenRocket and MATLAB program can predict rocket
altitude accurately
● Flight test data needed to determine drag coefficient
● Ensure that all checklists for full scale model are
followed
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 68
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 69
o Final Payload Design Overview
o Payload Dimensions
o Key Design Features
o Payload Electronics Overview
o Payload Integration
Agenda
8.0 Payload Overview
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 70
DARIC - Assembly
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 71
DARIC - Payload Dimensions
Drawing in inches, English units
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 72
DARIC - Key Design Features
• Compact design
• Easy Assembly
• Lightweight
• Simple Manufacturing Method
• Solar deployment system can be easily integrated to the top of the rover.
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 73
Key Design Features: SPOC System
• Pendulum system allows for orientation correction upon landing
• Pin restricts movement during flight
• Carriage system securely holds rover during descent
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 74
Key Design Features: SPD System
• Rotary servo holds down foldable solar panels
• Uses torsion springs to open up the solar panels
• Easily mounts on top of the rover allowing for easy access
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 75
Payload Electronics Overview
On the rover:• Motorized
• 2 servos (1 for the hook, 1 for the solar panels)• 1 main motor to drive the rover
• Electrical• Sixfab shield, Xbee Transceiver Unit, and Raspberry Pi• Eggfinder GPS module • micro SD card, and micro USB stick to record data
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 76
Payload Electronics Overview
A depiction of the schematic design
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 77
Payload Integration
• The coding system will be autonomous and run on a series of infinite loops
• Raspberry Pi, Sixfab Shield, and Xbee transceiver unit will be used to make coding easier
• Coding will be broken up into two sections• Code for electronic components• Code for motorized components
• When both sections have been tested enough, they will be merged together into a master program
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 78
Payload Integration
• Sources of data transmission• GPS data - due to NSL rules, the rover requires a GPS
module on the rover and will be wired accordingly• Transceiver data - due to NSL rules that the rover’s
sequence must be activated from a button, an Xbee transceiver module will be used to communicate• This transceiver module will send the GPS location over to the
team when the rover has completed its mission
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 79
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 80
Internal Interfaces Within Launch Vehicle
• 12 bolts hold SPOC
system to Launch
Vehicle
• Rotation Lock Pin is
tethered to the Main
Parachute via a steel
cable
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 81
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 82
o Status of Requirements Verification
o Timeline
Agenda
10.0 Project Plan
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 83
Verification Methods
Nomenclature -
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 84
Launch Vehicle Compliance Matrix
REQ# Description 1 2 3 4 V IP NV
VR2.2
The vehicle will carry one commercially
available, barometric altimeter for recording
the official altitude used in determining the
altitude award winner. Teams will receive the
maximum number of altitude points (5,280) if
the official scoring altimeter reads a value of
exactly 5280 feet AGL. The team will lose
one point for every foot above or below the
required altitude.
5.1.1 x
The team shall review the launch
vehicle system, subsystems and
components design verifying at
least one commercially available
altimeter.
1
Vehicle Requirements Verification Method
An altimeter will be
used to record flight
data such as altitude
and temperature and to
initiate parachute
deployment at
predetermined altitudes.
The vehicle was found
to deliver the payload
to approximately 5,280
feet and meet the
minimum rail exit
velocity of 52 ft/s.
VR2.1
Design Requirements Section
4.1.2 &
4.3.2x x 1
Status
OpenRocket simulations of final
design provide projected altitude,
launch tests shall showcase
altitude reached.
The vehicle will deliver the payload to an
apogee altitude of 5,280 feet above ground
level (AGL).
Verification Details
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 85
Recovery System Compliance Matrix
REQ# Description 1 2 3 4 V IP NV
RS3.2
Each team 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.
4.2.5.1 x
Results of the ground ejection test
shall verify successful
performance.
1
The drogue parachute will deploy
immediately after reaching apogee and
maintain a steady velocity of 120 ft/s until
the main parachute is deployed. In order
to minimize wind drift, the main parachute
will be deployed at an altitude of 600 ft.
A recovery system test on November 18,
2017 will cover a ground ejection test for
both the drogue and main parachutes
prior to the subscale and full-scale
launches.
Design RequirementsRecovery System Requirements
Section
The launch vehicle will stage the deployment
of its recovery devices, where a drogue
parachute is deployed at apogee and a main
parachute is deployed at a lower altitude.
Tumble or streamer recovery from apogee
to main parachute deployment is also
permissible, provided that kinetic energy
during drogue-stage descent is reasonable,
as deemed by the RSO.
RS3.1 4.4.8
Recovery testing will be done to
determine the proper deployment
of both parachutes.
StatusVerification Method
1x
Verification Details
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 86
Payload Compliance Matrix
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 87
REQ# Description 1 2 3 4 V IP NV
ER4.5 Deployable rover
ER4.5.1
Teams will design a custom rover that will
deploy from the internal structure of the
launch vehicle.
6.1 xInspection of rover design
schematics 1
ER4.5.2At landing, the team will remotely activate a
trigger to deploy the rover from the rocket.6.1.1 x
Inspection of rover design
schematics 1
ER4.5.3
After deployment, the rover will
autonomously move at least 5 ft. (in any
direction) from the launch vehicle.
6.1.1 &
6.2.2.1x
Inspection of rover design
schematics 1
Experiment Requirements Option 2
The payload team will build a small,
condensed rover with a thin two-track
system. The leading system design
includes a tetrahedron system and a
pendulum system.
Verification DetailsStatus
The payload experiment is a deployable
rover that will be remotely triggered by
the team after the launch vehicle has
landed.
The payload obective is to successfully
deploy a rover from a safely landed
rocket that will travel 5 feet from its
landing site.
Design Requirements SectionVerification Method
Safety Compliance Matrix
REQ# Description 1 2 3 4 V IP NV
SR5.2
Each team must identify a student safety
officer who will be responsible for all items in
Section 5.3.
5 xDemonstrated in team description
of PDR1
SR5.3The role and responsibilities of each safety
officer will include, but not limited to:
SR5.3.1Monitor team activities with an emphasis on
Safety during:
SR5.3.1.1 Design of vehicle and payload5.1.5 &
5.2x Demonstrate safety during design 1
SR5.3.1.2 Construction of vehicle and payload5.1.5 &
5.2x
Demonstrate safety during
construction1
Status
Each team will use a launch and safety
checklist. The final checklists will be included
in the FRR report.
and used during the Launch Readiness
Review (LRR) and any launch day
operations.
Safety Requirements Verification Method
Natalie Aparicio
Outlined for Safety Officer
responsibilities
Outlined for Safety Officer
responsibilities
SR5.1Safety Managers and Officers will create
a checklist prior to FRR and LRR.
At LRR, demonstration of the use
of the checklist5 x
Design Requirements Section Verification Details
1
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 88
General Compliance Matrix
REQ# Description 1 2 3 4 V IP NV
GR1.2
The team shall provide and maintain a
project plan to include, but not limited to the
following items: project milestones, budget
and community support, checklists,
personnel assigned, education engagement
events, and risks and mitigations.
7 xDemonstration of the project
plan.1
StatusGeneral Requirements Verification Method
1
Project plan will be discussed in greater
detail in CDR and LRR.
Design Requirements Section Verification Details
1.4 xTeam members shall demonstrate
100% of the project.GR1.1
Team Lead, Casey, will distribute an
equal amount of work to each student,
both for writing and manufacturing.
Students on the team shall do 100% of the
project, including design, construction,
written reports, presentations, and flight
prepartion with the exception of assembling
the motors and handling black powder or
any variant of ejection charges, or preparing
and installing electric matches (to be done by
the team's mentor).
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 89
Derived Requirements Matrix
REQ# Description 1 2 3 4 V IP NV
DR2.0
Bulkheads, including hollowed bulkhead,
must be strong enough to withstand impulse
forces generated by parachute shock cords.
7.1.1.3 x
Bulkhead loading tests will be
conducted to verify load
capabilities.
1 1
DR3.0
Plug for hollowed bulkhead must stay
attached during launch and flight, prior to
main parachute deployment.
7.1.1.3 x
Series of load tests will be
conducted to verify plug will stay
attached.
1 2
Body tube must be strong enough to
withstand the compressive launch forces and
must protect all avionics during launch and
landing.
System Requirements (Derived Requirements) Verification Method
Bulkheads will be constructed out of 3/4"
thick plywood capable of withstanding
impulse forces that will be experienced.
DR1.0
Body tube material is Blue Tube 2.0, a
commercially available tube capable of
withstanding mach 1 forces.
Plug will stay attached using friction fitting
during launch and flight prior to main
parachute deployment.
7.1.2.3 x
Design Requirements & Risk Mitigation Section Verification Details
1
Status
Conduct load verifications
Risk
Level
1
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 90
Gantt Chart
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 91
Gantt Chart
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 92
Gantt Chart
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 93
Important Milestones
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 94
Important Milestones
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 95
Important Milestones
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 96
7.0 Subscale Vehicle Overview
6.0 Test Plans and Procedures
5.0 Mission Performance Predictions
4.0 Recovery Subsystem
Agenda
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Final Launch Vehicle Overview
3.0 Launch Vehicle Performance
8.0 Payload Overview
9.0 Launch Vehicle Interfaces
10.0 Project Plan
11.0 Closing
01/26/2018 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona | CDR 2017-2018 97
Thank you, 2017-2018 CPP NSL Team
Questions or Comments?
Top Related