University Student Launch Initiative

Preliminary Design ReviewSubmission: December 4, 2009

Presentation: December 10, 2009

2

Overview

• Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Objectives• Mission Statements• Project Overview• Vehicle Criteria

– Structures– Propulsion

• Payload & Recovery Criteria• Verification and Testing Approach• Safety Tools• Risk Mitigation• Questions/Discussion

3

PDR Objectives

• Introduce vehicle and payload design to USLI engineering review board

• Confirm vehicle and payload design meet USLI competition requirements

• Evaluate safety and mission assurance plans• Demonstrate flight operations can be executed

safely• Detail cost and schedule for production, testing and

operations• Address risks and impacts to vehicle, cost, and

schedule

4

Mission Statement

USLI Mission Statement:

The NASA University Student Launch Initiative is a competition that challenges university level students to design, build, and fly a reusable rocket with a scientific payload to one mile in altitude. The project engages students in scientific research and real-world engineering processes with NASA Engineers.

(Cited from the NASA Education Website)

Charger Rocket Works Mission Statement:

Further our understanding of the science and engineering of high powered rocket thru developing and flight testing. Build a knowledge base with which to achieve even greater heights. Reach out to educate and inspire others to pursue a future in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

5

Project Overview

• Bellerophon & Pegasus– Greek hero Bellerophon slew the Chimera on the back of the

winged horse Pegasus.– Pegasus : booster stage – homage to UAHuntsville’s mascot– Bellerophon: payload - autonomous hybrid lander

Bellerophon

Pegasus

6

Project Overview

• Team Objectives– Develop in-house airframe manufacturing capability*– Develop a safe and reusable rocket with operations

procedures** – Reach closest to 1 mile in altitude***– Recover Bellerophon and Pegasus intact– Successfully demonstrate a mechanical recovery release

system– Successfully demonstrate the Bellerophon hybrid lander– Reach out to 500+ students in the local area

7

Project Overview

• Mission Description– Bellerophon & Pegasus launch preparation and walk-out– Avionics and payload power up (1.5 hr max pad-stay)– Launch, powered flight, & coast– Bellerophon & Pegasus separate at apogee and descend on

drogue– Bellerophon parasail deploys at 700 feet altitude and begins

flight maneuvers– Pegasus main parachute deploys at 500 feet altitude – Bellerophon & Pegasus touch down and are recovered– Flight data is downloaded and stored for reduction– Official altitude is recorded for competition

8

Vehicle CriteriaStructures

• Accomplishments since proposal:– 4 inch mandrel delivered for subscale and 98mm motor tubes* – Carbon fiber airframe manufactured in-house for subscale*– Successfully flight tested subscale rocket**– Verified in-house tube manufacturing as viable path forward for

full scale rocket development– Vacuum bag capability being matured*

• Work In Progress– Developing procedures for in-house airframe manufacturing**– Developing fiberglass laminated phenolic honeycomb core

material for centering rings and bulkplates– Preparing 6 inch mandrel for full scale rocket tubes*– Strength testing carbon fiber tubes**

9

Vehicle CriteriaStructures

• Subscale Design Description (flight tested)– 4 inches diameter & 68 inches overall vehicle length– 10 lbs pad weight– Carbon fiber airframe & phenolic coupler– Four G-10 Garolite clipped delta fins– Urethane 5:1 ogive nosecone– 54mm phenolic motor tube– ¾ inch plywood centering rings and bulkplates

• First Flight Performance:– 0.99 calibur static stability margin – balanced (field)– 0.28 drag coeffiecient– 3540 feet altitude– Many lessons learned

10

Vehicle CriteriaStructures

• Full Scale - Design Description (Baseline)– 6 inches diameter & 102 inches overall vehicle length– 32 lbs pad weight (with Aerotech L1150R loaded)– Carbon fiber airframe & fiberglass coupler– Four G-10 Garolite clipped delta fins – 6 inch diameter fiberglass 5:1 ogive nosecone– 98mm carbon fiber motor tube– ¾ inch birch plywood centering rings & baseplates

• Baseline Performance Predictions:– 1.43 calibur static stability margin – hand calculated– 0.34 drag coefficient

11

Vehicle CriteriaPropulsion

• Accomplishments since proposal:– Static test fired 4 motors– Developed procedures for conducting static test firings**– Validated subscale computer model with flight data (Cd)**– Verified subscale model stability with hand-calculations**– Baselined full scale competition motor – Aerotech L1150R***

• Work In Progress:– Optimizing full scale computer model– Ordered full scale demonstration motor for verification test

• Baseline Performance Predictions:– Thrust to Weight Ratio of 7.2 – Velocity off the pad of 60 ft/sec– Maximum Altitude of 5280 ft

12

Payload & Recovery Criteria

• Integrated Payload and Recovery– Systems are closely linked – Promotes commonality & improves reliability

• Reliability & Redundancy– Bellerophon & Pegasus use mechanical release device

(baseline)– Mechanical releases triggered by altimeter activated servos– Bellerophon & Pegasus use independent altimeters– Altimeters have dedicated batteries & switches

• Pegasus Recovery System (Full Scale)– Drogue: B2Rocketry 24 inch parachute(75 ft/sec decent rate)– Main: B2Rocketry Cert-3 XXL parachute (15 ft/sec decent rate)– D-Bag: B2Rocketry XXL deployment bag

13

Payload & Recovery Criteria

Bellerophon Hybrid Lander– Nosecone contains GN&C system– Autonomous / manual override capable– Drogue: B2Rocketry 24 inch parachute

(75 ft/sec decent rate)– Parasail: 2.75 AR & Spans 8 feet

(15 ft/sec static decent rate)

Support Line

Anchor

Servos

Control Lines

14

Payload & Recovery Criteria

• Accomplishments since proposal:– Flight tested prototype mechanical release device– Flight tested prototype hybrid lander with R/C servos

• Work in Progress:– Mature mechanical released device design– Mature requirements for parasail configuration– Building payload mass simulators for iterated subscale flight

testing– Developing hybrid lander ground test schedule to support flight

test schedule – Developing autonomous flight controller

15

Verification and Testing Approach

A – Mission:– Subscale rocket flight test– Flight test mechanical release device with two parachutes (no parasail)– Mass simulator for R/C parasail control & nosecone payloads– Flight test of deployment bags

B – Mission:– Subscale rocket flight test– Flight test mechanical release device with parachute/parasail (static)– Mass simulator for R/C parasail control & nosecone payloads– Flight test of deployment bags

C – Mission:– Subscale rocket flight test– Flight test mechanical release device with parachute/parasail (static)– Integrated Flight test of R/C parasail control system– Mass simulator for nosecone payloads– Flight test of deployment bags

16

Verification and Testing Approach

D – Mission: – Full scale rocket flight test – sub altitude– Flight test of mechanical release device two parachutes (no parasail)– Mass simulator for R/C parasail control & nosecone payloads– Flight test deployment bags

E – Mission:– Full scale rocket flight test – 1 mile– Flight Test of mechanical recovery mechanism with parachutes and

parasail (static)– Mass simulator for R/C parasail control & nosecone payloads– Test deployment bags

F – Mission “Full-Up”:– Full scale rocket flight test – 1 mile– Flight Test of mechanical recovery mechanism with parachutes and

parasail – Integrated Flight Test of R/C parasail control & nosecone payloads– Test deployment bags

17

Verification and Testing Approach

Flight Test Schedule:• Dec.12-13, 2009: A – Mission• Jan. 16-17, 2010: B – Mission • Feb. 13-14, 2010: C – Mission/ D – Mission • March 6-7, 2010: E – Mission • March 27-28, 2010: F – Mission • April 10-11, 2010: (Optional)

Ground Test Schedule:• In development to support flight test objectives

18

Safety Tools• Safety Briefings:

– A now standard practice before conducting any construction project, and ground or flight test.

– Participating individuals are briefed of responsibilities, procedures, likely hazards, and actions to take in the event of an accident or hazard.

– Participants are briefed on the need and the proper use of safety equipment.

• Written Procedures:– Developed for all construction projects, ground and flight tests. – Improved knowledge base, effectiveness, and safety between

leaving and incoming team members.

• MSDS:– Available in the lab and audited once at the beginning of the

semester

19

Safety Tools

• Existing Procedures:– Static Motor Test Firing Stand Setup and Test Conduction– Carbon Fiber Tubing Layup and Curing – Launch Day Checklist

• Procedures in work:– Black Powder & Ground Based Recovery Testing– Parachute Folding Procedures– Mechanical Release Testing– Launcher Assembly and Usage

20

Risk Mitigation

• Identified risks to vehicle, schedule, & cost• Potential outcome of failure• Steps taken to mitigate those risks• Need to rank risk from most likely to leastFunction Failure Effects of Failure Failure Prevention

1 Buckling of

airframe Unstable flight, failure of other

components in rocket Selection of strong

materials

2 Shearing of

airframe Unstable flight, failure of other

components in rocket Strong enough materials

to prevent shearing

3 Premature airframe

separation

Unstable flight, recovery failure unable to reach target altitude

Correct selection of shear pins

4 Fin failure Unstable flight Correct construction

techniques, stiff materials

5 Center ring failure Stability of structure decreased Correct ring size and

construction techniques

6 Bulkhead failure Damage to subsystems, unstable

flight Correct construction

techniques

7 Nose cone failure Inability to reuse nose cone Selection of strong nose

cone

21

Recovery Risks:

Risk Mitigation

Function Potential Failure

Mode Potential Effects of Failure Failure Prevention

1 Parachute breakaway

Loss of flight article Design robust retention

system

2 Parachute

deployment Failure

Loss of flight article Ground test deployment

system

3 Descent rate too

High Damage on landing; Loss of

flight article Use larger parachute; Drop

test flight hardware

4 Parachute melt Damage on landing; Loss of

flight article Use flame retardant shroud

5 Parachute tear Damage on landing; Loss of

flight article Inspect parachute material prior to launch preparation

6 Parachute tangle Descent rate too high;

Damage on landing; Loss of flight article

Correctly pack parachute; Ground test deployment

system

7 Rocket separation

failure

Descent rate too high; Damage on landing; Loss of

flight article

Test black powder charges; Vacuum test altimeters

8 Parafoil tangle Descent rate too high;

Damage on landing; Loss of nose cone

Correctly pack parafoil; Drop test parafoil

9 Parafoil tear Descent rate too high;

Damage on landing; Loss of nose cone

Inspect parafoil material prior to launch preparation

22

Subscale Photos

Bellerophon & Pegasus at the Childersburg, AL Proving Grounds

23

Questions/Discussion

• Recovery