Team20 Rocketengineeringcompetition Final

EML 4905 Senior Design Project
A B.S. THESIS
PREPARED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition

100% Report
Maryel Gonzalez
Christopher Hayes
Giancarlo Lombardi
Advisor: Professor Benjamin Boesl
November 23, 2015
This B.S. thesis is written in partial fulfillment of the requirements in EML 4905.
The contents represent the opinion of the authors and not the Department of
Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Ethics Statement and Signatures

The work submitted in this B.S. thesis is solely prepared by a team consisting of Christopher
Hayes, Maryel Gonzalez, and Giancarlo Lombardi and it is original. Excerpts from others
work have been clearly identified, their work acknowledged within the text and listed in the list
of references. All of the engineering drawings, computer programs, formulations, design work,
prototype development and testing reported in this document are also original and prepared by
the same team of students.
Maryel Gonzalez
Christopher Hayes
Giancarlo Lombardi
Team Member
Team Leader
Team Member
Dr. Benjamin Boesl

Faculty Advisor
ii
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.2 MOTIVATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
1.3 LITERATURE SURVEY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
1.3.1
History ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
1.3.2
Theory and Governing Equations------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
1.4 SURVEY OF RELATED STANDARDS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12
PROJECT FORMULATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
OVERVIEW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
PROJECT OBJECTIVES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
ADDRESSING GLOBAL DESIGN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
CONSTRAINTS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

3.1 OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS DEVELOPED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.2 AIRFRAME DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.2.1
Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.2.2
Concept #1: Single Diameter with Brake Pods ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
3.2.3
Concept #2: Single Diameter with Internal Brake ------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
3.2.4
Concept #3: Varying Body Diameter with Internal Brake --------------------------------------------------------- 20
3.3 PROPULSION SYSTEM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
3.3.1
Concept #1: Solid Motor --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
3.3.2
Concept #2: Hybrid Motor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
3.3.3
Concept #3: Liquid Motor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
3.4 ALTITUDE TARGETING SYSTEM (ATS) DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
3.4.1
Concept # 1: Weight Based Targeting System ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
3.4.2
Concept #2: Computer Controlled Flaps ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
3.4.3
Concept #3: Computer Deployed Parachute Brake ----------------------------------------------------------------- 30
3.5 RECOVERY SYSTEM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
3.5.1
Concept #1: Standard Dual Deployment Configuration ----------------------------------------------------------- 32
3.5.2
Concept #2: Single Parachute Bay Dual Deployment -------------------------------------------------------------- 33
3.6 INTEGRATION OF GLOBAL DESIGN ELEMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
3.7 FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
PROPOSED DESIGN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36

4.1 AIRFRAME -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
4.2 PROPULSION SYSTEM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
4.2.1
Overview ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
4.2.2
Casing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
4.2.3
Reload -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
4.2.4
Retainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40
4.3 ALTITUDE TARGETING SYSTEM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
4.3.1
Overview ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
4.3.2
Electronics --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
4.3.3
Construction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 42
4.4 RECOVERY SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44
4.4.1
Electronics --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45
4.4.2
Parachutes and Rigging---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
iii
4.4.3
5
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Sequence of Events ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
OVERVIEW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
BREAKDOWN OF WORK INTO SPECIFIC TASKS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49
GANTT CHART FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF WORK AND TIMELINE------------------------------------------------------------------- 49
BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG TEAM MEMBERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 50
ENGINEERING DESIGN AND ANALYSIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51

6.1 OVERVIEW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51
6.2 ALTITUDE TARGETING SYSTEM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52
6.2.1
Airbrake Parachute Sizing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52
6.2.2
Electronics --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58
6.2.3
Software ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60
6.3 AIRFRAME -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
6.3.1
Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
6.3.2
Tubes---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69
6.3.3
Avionics Bay Parts ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70
6.3.4
Other Parts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73
6.4 FINS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76
6.4.1
Shape --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77
6.4.2
Sizing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78
6.4.3
Material ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 79
6.4.4
Simulation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80
6.4.5
Comparison to Full-scale -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82
6.5 RECOVERY SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83
6.5.1
Mechanical Components -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83
6.5.2
Electronics --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84
6.6 LAUNCH SIMULATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 86
6.6.1
Location Weather ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86
6.6.2
Simulation Program --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89
6.6.3
Test Cases --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92
PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95

7.1 OVERVIEW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95
7.2 PARTS LIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95
7.2.1
Full Scale ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95
7.2.2
Subscale ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 96
7.2.3
Discussion---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96
7.3 PARTS PICTURES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97
7.3.1
Body Tubes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97
7.3.2
Structural Elements --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 98
7.3.3
Miscellaneous Support Materials ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100
7.4 FIBERGLASS HAND LAYUP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 102
7.5 ASSEMBLY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 105
TESTING AND EVALUATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110

8.1 PARACHUTE EJECTION TESTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110
8.1.1
Procedure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110
8.1.2
Black Powder Charge Sizing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111
8.1.3
Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 113
8.2 FLIGHT TEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 115
8.2.1
Procedure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 117
iv
8.2.2
8.2.3
9
Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 117

Failure Analysis------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 129
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130

9.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 130
9.1.1
Safety and Mission Assurance of the Vehicle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 130
9.1.2
Personnel Health and Safety ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 132
9.2 ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133
9.3 MANUFACTURABILITY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134
9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135
9.5 RISK ASSESSMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 137
10
DESIGN EXPERIENCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138

10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
11
OVERVIEW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138

STANDARDS USED IN THE PROJECT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138
IMPACT OF DESIGN IN A GLOBAL AND SOCIETAL CONTEXT --------------------------------------------------------------------- 139
LIFE-LONG LEARNING AND DESIGN EXPERIENCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139
DESIGN CHALLENGES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140
CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141

11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141

EVALUATION OF INTEGRATED GLOBAL DESIGN ASPECTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 142
EVALUATION OF INTANGIBLE EXPERIENCES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142
FUTURE WORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 143
12
REFERENCES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 144
13
APPENDIX ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146

13.1
STANDARDS AND CODES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146
13.1.1
NAR High Power Safety Code --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146
13.1.2
National Fire Protection Association Code for High Powered Rocketry --------------------------------- 149
13.1.3
FAA Code of Federal Regulations Pt.101 Subpart C Amateur Rockets -------------------------------- 149
13.1.4
ATF Federal Explosives Law and Regulations Part 555 ---------------------------------------------------- 153
13.1.5
ANSI B11.0 Machinery Safety Standards ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 153
13.1.6
ASME Code of Ethics of Engineers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 154
13.2
GROUP PHOTO -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 156
List of Figures
Figure 1: Center of Gravity on a Model Rocket .............................................................................. 7
Figure 2: Diagram illustrating Barrowmans Rocket Sectioning ..................................................... 9
Figure 3: Center of Pressure vs. Center of Gravity ....................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Airframe Concept #1 - Single Diameter with Brake Pods .............................................. 17
Figure 5: Airframe Concept #2 - Single Diameter with Internal Brake ......................................... 18
Figure 6: Airframe Concept #3 - Varying Diameter with Internal Brake ...................................... 20
Figure 7: Solid Motor cutaway isometric view ............................................................................. 21
Figure 8: Solid Motor cross-sectional view ................................................................................... 22
Figure 9: Hybrid Motor cutaway isometric view .......................................................................... 23
Figure 10: Hybrid motor cross-sectional view .............................................................................. 23
Figure 11: Liquid Motor cutaway isometric view ......................................................................... 25
Figure 12: Liquid Motor cross-sectional view ............................................................................... 25
Figure 13: ATS Concept #2 - Computer-Controlled Flaps ............................................................. 28
Figure 14: ATS Concept #3- Computer-deployed Airbrake Parachute ......................................... 30
Figure 15: Recovery Concept #1 - Standard Dual Deployment .................................................... 32
Figure 16: Recovery Concept #2 - Single Parachute Bay Dual Deployment (1) ............................ 33
Figure 17: Recovery Concept #2 - Single Parachute Bay Dual Deployment (2) ............................ 34
Figure 18: Proposed Rocket Design for IREC competition ............................................................ 36
Figure 19: Airframe Dimensions (in) ............................................................................................. 36
Figure 20: Motor Casing Forward Closure .................................................................................... 38
Figure 21: Motor Casing Rear Closure .......................................................................................... 38
Figure 22: Selected Motor Characteristics.................................................................................... 39
Figure 23: Aerotech M1939 Motor Thrust Curve ......................................................................... 40
Figure 24: Aeropack Minimum Diameter retainer ....................................................................... 41
Figure 25: Airbrake Shock Cord Attachment Scheme................................................................... 43
Figure 26: Rear view of airframe depicting airbrake parachute bay ............................................ 43
Figure 27: Airbrake Parachute Bay Rear closure .......................................................................... 44
Figure 28: Altus Telemega flight computer .................................................................................. 45
Figure 29: Parachute Release Cable Cutter .................................................................................. 47
Figure 30: Mesh Model of the Rocket Used for Flight Simulations .............................................. 51
Figure 31: Relative Pressure (2 ft.; 50 ft./s) .................................................................................. 54
Figure 32: Velocity (2 ft.; 50 ft./s) ................................................................................................. 55
Figure 33: Flow Trajectories (2 ft.; 50 ft./s) .................................................................................. 55
Figure 34: Relative Pressure (4 ft.; 300 ft./s) ................................................................................ 56
Figure 35: Velocity (4 ft.; 300 ft./s) ............................................................................................... 56
Figure 36: Flow Trajectories (4 ft.; 300 ft./s) ................................................................................ 57
Figure 37: Airframe Geometry Labels ........................................................................................... 68
Figure 38: 3D Printed Transition ................................................................................................... 75
Figure 39: CAD - Minimum Diameter Retainer ............................................................................. 76
Figure 40: Fin Dimensions ............................................................................................................. 77
Figure 41: FinSim Dimensions User Interface ............................................................................... 79
Figure 42: FinSim Results .............................................................................................................. 81
Figure 43: Avionics Bay Wiring Diagram ....................................................................................... 85
vi
Figure 44: Wind Speeds at launch location (Green River, UT) ..................................................... 87
Figure 45: Humidity at launch location (Green River, UT) ............................................................ 87
Figure 46: Temperature at launch location (Green River, UT) ..................................................... 88
Figure 47: Screenshot of Rocksim UI ............................................................................................ 89
Figure 48: Rocksim model used for flight simulations .................................................................. 90
Figure 49: Rocksim UI for inputting Launch Conditions ............................................................... 91
Figure 50: Simulated Flight Profile for Subscale Rocket (wind speed = 0 mph) ........................... 93
Figure 51: Cross Wind Speed Effects on Altitude ......................................................................... 94
Figure 52: Stock Phenolic Airframe Body Tube ............................................................................ 97
Figure 53: Tight Fit Between Coupler and Airframe Tubes .......................................................... 98
Figure 54: G10 Fiberglass Centering Ring ..................................................................................... 99
Figure 55: G10 Fiberglass Bulkhead .............................................................................................. 99
Figure 56: Minimum Diameter Motor Retainer ......................................................................... 100
Figure 57: Electric Match ............................................................................................................ 101
Figure 58: Shear Pin and Permanent Screw................................................................................ 102
Figure 59: Fiberglass Layup Setup............................................................................................... 103
Figure 60: Heat Shrinking Rocket ................................................................................................ 104
Figure 61: Fiberglass Hand Layup hanging to dry ....................................................................... 105
Figure 62: Motor Mount Tube Assembly .................................................................................... 106
Figure 63: Front view of Avionics Bay Altus Telemega ............................................................ 107
Figure 64: Back View of Avionics Bay Battery .......................................................................... 108
Figure 65: Subscale Rocket Fully Built ........................................................................................ 109
Figure 66: Telemega Remote Firing Screen ................................................................................ 111
Figure 67: Cable Cutter Wrapped Around Main Parachute ....................................................... 113
Figure 68: Ejection Test Setup .................................................................................................... 114
Figure 69: Rear Ejection of Airbrake ........................................................................................... 114
Figure 70: Deployment of Main Parachute................................................................................. 115
Figure 71: Rocket Sitting On Pad ................................................................................................ 116
Figure 72: Flight Data .................................................................................................................. 126
Figure 73: Flight Statistics ........................................................................................................... 127
Figure 74: Map View of the Rocket's Flight Trajectory ............................................................... 128
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Tasks ................................................................................................................... 49
Table 2: Team Member Responsibilities....................................................................................... 50
Table 3: Force (lbf) experienced by airframe................................................................................ 57
Table 4: Pseudocode for Airbrake Deployment ............................................................................ 64
Table 5: Parts and Sizes by Numbers ............................................................................................ 69
Table 6: Parts Names and Descriptions ........................................................................................ 71
Table 7: G10 Fiberglass Material Properties ................................................................................. 79
Table 8: Mechanical Components and Descriptions .................................................................... 83
Table 9: Weather Conditions in Green River, UT .......................................................................... 88
Table 10: Flight Simulation Results Altitude Affected By Wind Speed ...................................... 93
Table 11: Cost Breakdown for construction of Fullscale Rocket .................................................. 95
Table 12: Cost Breakdown for Subscale Rocket ........................................................................... 96
Table 13: Causes, Consequences, and Mitigation of Failure Modes .......................................... 130
Table 14: Hazard Sources and Mitigations ................................................................................. 132
Table 15: Risk Assessment of Hazards and Failures ................................................................... 137
Table 16: Minimum Distance Table ............................................................................................ 148
viii
Abstract
The Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition (IREC) is an international
competitive event hosted by the Experimental Sounding Rocket Association. The competition is
held annually to invigorate the work and research done on sounding rockets. The actual
requirements call for a rocket to carry a 10-lb payload to an altitude of 10,000 ft. above ground
level (AGL). The main objective for this senior design project is to develop an altitude targeting
system (ATS) capable of reaching 10,000 ft. with a 10-lb payload.
Apart from the main design component of the ATS, the other subsystems to be designed
are the airframe and the recovery. In addition, the three conventional types of rocket
propulsion systems are solid, liquid, and hybrid engines. These were evaluated for their
advantages and disadvantages based off of their thrust and impulse characteristics. It was
determined that the solid motor was the most feasible option to implement for the scope of
this competition. Finally, due to the intense loads expected from a typical high-altitude flight,
the airframe was constructed from fiberglass, a lightweight composite material, adding strength
to the airframe.
Next, the avionics bay serves to control all aspects of the rocket including the drogue
parachute deployment and the main parachute deployment in addition to powering and
housing an onboard GPS for locating the rocket after safe landing. Tests performed include a
ground ejection test for the recovery system, wireless communication of GPS units, and tests of
redundant and manual override electronics. Given the limited timeframe of the senior design
course and cost to construct the full-scale design of the rocket, the team will deliver a subscale
rocket with the intent to prove concepts driving the full-scale design. The subscale design is
used to evaluate the air brake system, the recovery system, and the aerodynamics of the
vehicle. Also, flight simulation software was used to illustrate the effects of varying
environmental conditions to determine the amount of weight necessary to maintain optimal
trajectory. Finally, the project will place a strong emphasis on low-cost designing and
manufacturing as a form of increasing space access to the public.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The goal of the IREC competition is to design and construct a rocket powered vehicle
capable of carrying a 10 pound payload to 10,000 feet above ground level and returning safely
to the ground. Points are awarded based on how close the vehicles apogee is to 10,000 feet,
the number of custom fabricated parts versus commercially available components purchased
and finally, the overall uniqueness of the vehicle. The main objective for the teams senior
project is to design an altitude targeting system (ATS) that will enable the rocket to accurately
reach 10,000 ft. with a 10-lb payload. Finally, at the completion of the senior design course, the
team will deliver a subscale rocket.
1.2 MOTIVATION
Rockets and related technology have long been accessible exclusively to the
technologically elite. This is primarily due to the simple fact that rockets have extremely high
developmental costs associated. Some of these expenses include costly fuels, exotic materials,
and many hours of testing and refinement. While this is still mostly the case today, a shift can
be seen focusing on newer technology that is more economical and innovative. Critical aspects
of the project include keeping the rocket design as simple and as inexpensive as possible while
still providing high performance and reliability. More importantly, it is the teams full intent to
compete in the IREC competition to bring attention and prestige to the engineering student
body at Florida International University.
1.3 LITERATURE SURVEY

1.3.1 History
Although the true origin of rockets has yet to be determined, one can surely say that
modern rocket technology first came about in 1840 when the first rocket designer, William
Hale, developed small nozzles and tail fins that made rockets more accurate as they spun to
stabilize the exhaust of gases [1]. Later in 1903, school teacher now deemed the father of
modern astronautics, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, published a famous article called Exploration of
the Universe with Reaction Machines. This report features the first theoretical concepts and
detailed calculations describing the requirements for space travel. From these calculations, he
describes finding that the limiting factor for a rocket to achieve faster speeds and higher ranges
is simply the exhaust velocity of the escaping gases. Furthermore, Tsiolkovsky was also the first
to suggest the use of liquid propellants [2].
Furthermore, in 1915, Robert H. Goddard began his experiments with solid-propellant
rockets and made many mathematical calculations that further proved that rockets could be
boosted better by using liquid propellants. In 1919, Goddard published a pamphlet with all of
his mathematical analyses titled A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. Later, after
designing a system using gasoline tanks, liquid oxygen tanks, turbines, and combustion
chambers, he achieved the first successful liquid-fueled flight on March 16th, 1926 reaching 12.5
meters in 2.5 seconds. As he improved rocket propulsion he modeled bigger rockets that
reached greater altitudes. He even developed a gyroscope system for better flight control as
well as payload bays to carry scientific instruments. Finally he was the first to implement
4
recovery systems using parachutes to protect both rockets and instruments and aid in their safe
landing. Because of all of these experiments, inventions, and developments, Goddard is now
known as the father of modern rocketry. Shortly after, the thrill of the race for space between
the United States and the Soviet Union along with Goddards enthusiasm for rocketry
innovation sparked an interest for space exploration and ignited further developments for
space travel. As more satellites, machines, and people were launched into space, the passion
for space lead to the creation of the official space program we all know today as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [3]. Thus, from 1959 to this day, NASA has
sponsored many research projects that use new concepts and ideas and further explore
rocketry methods and standards developed by Goddard.
Many research projects use rockets to take measurements and test instruments at high
altitudes. A rocket used for this type of scientific experimental use is called a sounding rocket.
Cost-efficiency is one of the biggest driving requirements of a sounding rocket. Payload testing
has become more economical now that the rocket separates itself from its payload and is safely
recovered by means of a parachute ejecting out of the airframe to slow its descent. With
sounding rocket payload testing, scientists all over the world are able to conduct their
experiments in a simple, cost-effective and time efficient manner [4].
1.3.2 Theory and Governing Equations

Rocket science in general involves many mathematical concepts mainly relating to forces,
aerodynamics, thermodynamics, and gas dynamics specifically in terms of propulsion.
Moreover, the laws of physics developed by Isaac Newton govern the overall performance of a
rocket. First, an object will stay at rest or in constant motion until an external force acts upon it.
Secondly, force, for an object of constant mass, is equivalent to its mass times its acceleration the change in momentum per change in time. Finally, for every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction [5].
Primarily, Newtons first law of physics directly applies to rockets before and after the
motor is ignited. For instance, the only force acting upon the rocket is weight - product of mass
and gravity - before ignition. Then, when the engine is fired, thrust counters weight which
results in a positive upward force. The upward force is observed as the rocket shoots up into
the sky as both velocity and acceleration increase. Weight, on the other hand, decreases as the
motor burns. Newtons second law helps illustrate this phenomena as F = m*a. Vertical forces
acting on the rocket have constants and variables that have both magnitude and direction
commonly referred to as vectors. The rocket experiences both downward and upward forces as
follows: F = (mass)* (-gravity). Then as the motor is ignited, the rocket experiences a greater
positive force, -Fweight + Fthrust which represents the positive force upwards. Finally, the equal
and opposite reaction is observed as the pressurized gas exits the rockets nozzle creating
thrust, a reaction, which helps propel the rocket upwards [2].
Secondly, during the actual flight, a rocket experiences similar forces as an airplane. Apart
from gravity and thrust forces, the rocket experiences aerodynamic forces referred to as lift and
drag. Before explaining these concepts, it is important to note the location of two important
properties of the rocket before flight; center of pressure and center of gravity. Center of Gravity
(CG), is defined as the point at which all the weight of the rocket seems to be concentrated or
where much of the weight is distributed as evenly ahead of the point as much as behind the
point [12]. To illustrate this concept, it is easier to refer to the CG as the exact point where the
rocket is balanced if it were held by a string. Figure 1 helps depict this concept. Next, the
Center of Pressure (CP), similar to the CG, is the point at which all the air pressure forces on
the rocket seem to be concentrated [6].
Figure 1: Center of Gravity on a Model Rocket
To understand the relation of these concepts to our project, husband-wife team, James S.
and Judith Barrowman, derived equations for estimating the center of pressure on a model
rocket for their joint Masters thesis. The equations they derived are divided into three
different categories; subsonic, transonic, and supersonic. The equations used for this project
involve those under the subsonic category. More specifically, these equations are implemented
into the flight simulation software, Rocksim, which aids in predicting flight patterns according to
variable environmental conditions and individual rocket components. As is stated in the
beginning of the thesis, the most important characteristic of a model rocket is its stability.
Moreover, it is quite simple to determine the CG through a balance test as explained before,
however, the CP is directly responsible for reducing weather-cocking. To obtain a clearer
picture of the level of importance of this component, one should not that out of most variables
involved in a rockets design, any safety margins are directly applied to the location of the CP.
The calculation of CG and CP alone offer a method of iteration to determine the final design
[7].
The Barrowman equation is organized into methods of approach and assumptions. The
following assumptions are applied [11]:
a. Flow over rocket is potential flow no vortices or friction.
b. The point of the nose cone is sharp
c. Fins are thin flat plates without dents.
d. The flow is steady-state and subsonic.
e. The angle of attack is very near zero.
f. The rocket is a rigid body and axially symmetric.
Next, the method of approach includes dividing the rocket into separate components. Each
component or portion is individually analyzed as well as the interference effects between
8
individual portions. Simplification of calculations is important to avoid careless errors. Finally,

each individual component analysis is combined to form one complete analysis of the system.
This analysis is then verified by experimentation. According to the thesis, proper breakdown of
components are, in general cases, composed of a nosecone, cylindrical body, conical shoulder
or boattail, and fins [8]. Below is the sectioning and equations described above [9]:
Figure 2: Diagram illustrating Barrowmans Rocket Sectioning
10
Thus, the CP is the exact location at which lift and drag act upon the rocket. Drag can be
depicted as friction on the surface of the rocket exerted by the air moving around the rocket
during flight, or rather, the resistance that the rocket experiences in the direction of the air
flow. Finally, the perpendicular force that stabilizes the direct of the rocket during flight is
called lift. Lift, when referring to a
rocket as opposed to an airplane, is
considered
dependent
upon
the
shapes of the nose cone, body tube or

airframe, and fins as they actively turn
the flow of the air and create the
opposite force called lift. In a rocket,
the ratio of drag is much greater than
lift [15]. To illustrate lift and drag
forces in mathematical terms, the net
Figure 3: Center of Pressure vs. Center of Gravity
force acting on the CP is calculated by integrating the pressure times the area around the entire
surface of the rocket. Pressure distribution is found by using Bernoullis equation. For viscous
gases, such as dense air, Reynolds number is used to express the magnitude in terms of the
viscosity of the gas and the relative magnitude of the viscous forces along the surface of the
rocket. However, for purposes of this project, we calculate the magnitude of the force by
11
integrating the local pressure times the surface area around the entire body of the rocket [16].
For a stable rocket, the CG is located above the CP as depicted in Figure 2.
Also, it is important to note the thermodynamic properties and laws observed when
referring to propulsion. The thermodynamic laws observed in this project are the following: the
Zeroth Law of thermodynamic equilibrium and temperature, the First Law regarding work, heat,
and energy, and the Second Law addressing entropy. Last but not least, the gas dynamics
relevant to this project include the study of the characteristics of gases including viscosity and
compressibility [7]. In conclusion, as one may observe, many of the concepts and theories
learned throughout mechanical engineering courses such as Fluid Mechanics, Thermodynamics,
Statics, Dynamics, and Heat Transfer are applied in this project.
1.4 SURVEY OF RELATED STANDARDS

Standards and regulations observed in this design project are the following:
NAR High Power Safety Code
National Fire Protection Association Code for High Power Rocketry (NFPA 1127)
Federal Aviation Administration Code of Federal Regulations Part 101 Subpart C
ATF Federal Explosives Law and Regulations Part 555
ANSI B11.0 Machinery Safety Standards
ASME - Code of Ethics of Engineers
A complete draft and their source locations can be found in the Appendix.
12
2 PROJECT FORMULATION
2.1 OVERVIEW
The team will compete in the 2016 Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition (IREC)
whose objective is to design, construct, and launch a rocket with a payload having a minimum
weight of ten pounds. In addition, the rocket and payload must reach as close to 10,000 feet
above ground level (AGL).
2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The team designed, built and launched a rocket that was capable of achieving at least
5000 feet AGL and not exceed 12,000 feet AGL. For awards qualification, the altitude reached
during launch was recorded with one or more on-board altimeters and verified by a judge or
designated surrogate during ground recovery. In addition, the rocket was designed to deliver
the payload to the target altitude independent of any payload function. In this manner, the
payload may be replaced with a ballast of the same mass and form factor resulting in no change
or overall effect to the rocket's trajectory in reaching the target altitude during the competition.
Finally, the payload location in the rocket in addition to the method of installation or removal
has not yet been specified however, a mass will be considered for weigh-ins prior to flight [5].
13
2.3 DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

As stated before, the rocket was constructed in a manner at which allowed the target
altitude to be met regardless of the payload function. Some critical design components
considered include motor choice, altitude targeting system, custom flight computer, and the
airframe aerodynamic performance.
Motor selection greatly depended on the size and weight of the launch vehicle, weather
conditions during the launch, NAR certification limitations, and the drag coefficient of the
vehicle. The rocket itself was built in a way to decrease the drag coefficient, have the least
physical limitations regarding airframe construction, be strong enough to withstand a high
thrust motor, and have an adequate diameter and length to fit the motor casing [6].
In addition, the altitude targeting system itself enabled the rocket to attain the desired
altitude. The custom flight computer was also developed to be the primary controller for the
altitude targeting system. After observing the linear behavior of pressure and temperature in
relation to altitude in Earths atmosphere, the flight computer was programmed to interpolate
the change in pressure over time to establish the vehicles velocity and altitude, thereby
providing the altitude targeting system the two variables needed for its performance. Finally,
the airframe must be able to withstand the aerodynamic loads expected given the chosen
motors thrust and impulse. Finally, the airframe design must create a favorable stability margin
to ensure that the rocket does not have an unexpected or catastrophic flight performance.
14
2.4 ADDRESSING GLOBAL DESIGN

The global learning components observed are the following:
A cost-effective approach to manufacture and assemble rocket, maximizing replicability

and thus, public access
Strict adherence to established codes and standards to ensure personnel and property
safety
Promotion of space engineering which has historically provided some of the most
innovative new technologies for energy savings and sustainability
2.5 CONSTRAINTS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Possible project constraints include project funding, time, as well as construction and
testing facilities. Even though the team is confident in their fundraising abilities, they will be
very dependent on corporate sponsorships, academic scholarships, and private donations.
Fundraising events such as bake sales and car washes during the summer break will be
attempted. In addition, applications towards corporations and the Florida Space Grant
Consortium will be submitted. Academic grants and scholarships from Florida International
University (FIU) and its affiliated student programs and organizations such as the FIU
American Society of Mechanical Engineers student section will be applied for as well.
Next, the project was completed within a seven month span beginning on April 2015 and
ending by the first week of December 2015. During this time, construction, testing, and
launching of a sub-scale as well as a full-scale vehicle was all completed. Construction and
15
testing was done within a safe and well-ventilated facility where personnel and property are
kept safe. In addition, strict adherence to ANSI B11.0 machinery safety standards as well as all
rocketry related standards and regulations was applied. Finally, travel to the competition limits
the size and the amount of components the team is allowed to bring. Thus, heavy ground
support and a large airframe are heavy constraints the team has considered during
manufacturing.
3 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
3.1 OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS DEVELOPED
A number of different design ideas for each individual system and their subsystems were
presented by the team for evaluation. This section presents all of these concepts, organized by
subsystem.
3.2 AIRFRAME DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

3.2.1 Introduction
A standard rocket build consists of a single diameter tube divided into sections, a
nosecone, and, and tail fins for stability. Within the tube, starting from the bottom up, is the
motor mount, the drogue parachute bay, the electronics bay, the main parachute bay, and the
payload bay which is capped by the nose cone.
The design of a rocket airframe is completely dictated by the goals of the rocket. IREC
requirements call for the rocket to carry a 10-pound payload which significantly increases the
16
work required to attain the target altitude of 10,000 feet as well as requires the rocket utilize a
motor powerful enough to achieve stability off the pad. While these requirements definitely
add to the overall structural strength and thrust required by the rocket, they do not
significantly alter the standard design model.
In addition to the additional payload requirement, a system to actively target the
specified altitude was also included. Several methods of achieving this were proposed and
those methods were what caused the airframe designs to deviate from the standard model.
This section focuses only on the structural impact of each different system and the cascading
effects thereafter. A detailed analysis of each system has been included in section 3.2.3.
3.2.2 Concept #1: Single Diameter with Brake Pods
Figure 4: Airframe Concept #1 - Single Diameter with Brake Pods
3.2.2.1 Overview
The first concept to be developed was an airframe with a central body tube and 2
external tubes to house two air brake parachutes.
17
3.2.2.2 Advantages
There were not too many advantages to this design. As the first iteration, it was the
easiest to visualize and served as a good starting point for the air brake concept.
3.2.2.3 Disadvantages
The two parachute pods had increased the rockets cross sectional area as well as
surface area resulting in greater drag. In addition, the complexity was increased over the
standard model which in turn increases the chance of failure. To support the massive load from
a high speed parachute deployment the pods and their attachment points to the main body had
to be designed in a way which also added a lot of extra weight.
3.2.3 Concept #2: Single Diameter with Internal Brake
Figure 5: Airframe Concept #2 - Single Diameter with Internal Brake
3.2.3.1 Overview
The second design idea proposed was to use a single air brake parachute and house it
within a single body tube. The airbrake housing would be located in the rear of the rocket with
the parachute being stored in between the outer body tube and the motor mount.
18
3.2.3.2 Advantages
This design allowed the body to retain a single, constant body diameter which greatly
decreased rocket complexity from the previous version.
The bottom of the rocket needs to have an open cavity for parachute storage and
deployment. The typical rocket design utilizes a thrust plate at the base of the rocket which
directly transfers the thrust force from the motor to the outer body at the bottom edge with a
compressive load. With this design, it is necessary to transfer the thrust force to the body via
centering rings which are connected using glue and bolts. This design relies on the shear
strength of the material and glue. In addition, this design requires a larger diameter body be
used which greatly increases weight as well as cost.
19
3.2.4 Concept #3: Varying Body Diameter with Internal Brake
Figure 6: Airframe Concept #3 - Varying Diameter with Internal Brake
3.2.4.1 Overview
The 3rd concept is almost the same as the second except instead of a single size body
tube for the length of the rocket, a transition was made to a smaller diameter for the upper
section. All other aspects remained the same.
3.2.4.2 Advantages
Since the larger body diameter was only necessary in the lower portion of the airframe
to accommodate an airbrake parachute, it is not necessary to continue with that diameter in
the upper. Reducing the airframe diameter reduces material cost, and weight.
The addition of a transitional element into a smaller body diameter adds complexity to
the design.
20
3.3 PROPULSION SYSTEM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

In rocketry, three basic types of propulsion systems exist: solid motors, hybrid motors,
and liquid motors. Each type has its own benefits and drawbacks thus, to choose one,
conceptual design work has been performed on each individually.
3.3.1 Concept #1: Solid Motor
Figure 7: Solid Motor cutaway isometric view
21
Figure 8: Solid Motor cross-sectional view
3.3.1.1 Overview
The solid motor consists of an outer casing, an upper bulkhead, a nozzle, and a set of
solid fuel grains. It functions by igniting the fuel grains which burn at a steady rate, increasing
combustion chamber temperature and pressure and expelling the products out the nozzle to
produce thrust.
3.3.1.2 Advantages
The main advantage of a solid motor is its simplicity. These motors are commercially
available, easily purchased and in theory are easily made as well. They can be constructed as
single use, disposable units or have a reusable casing.
The disadvantages are that over time this method can become costly. For a single use,
this may be the most cost effective motor but since the motor is not reusable a new one must
be purchased for every flight. Another disadvantage is that imperfections in the fuel grains can
22
cause an explosion, although this is primarily a concern for home-made motors. Commercially
available motors have been tested and approved to be reliable.
3.3.2 Concept #2: Hybrid Motor
Figure 9: Hybrid Motor cutaway isometric view
Figure 10: Hybrid motor cross-sectional view
23
3.3.2.1 Overview
A hybrid motor consists of two main chambers: the oxidizer tank, and the combustion
chamber. These are separated by an injector bulkhead. At the top of the oxidizer tank is an
upper bulkhead which can contain the fill valve for nitrous oxide or liquid oxygen oxidizers and
also a vent which helps with filling and also prevents excessive pressure build up due to tank
heating. At the bottom of the combustion chamber is the nozzle and lining its walls is a solid
fuel grain. To ignite the motor, the solid fuel grain must begin vaporization so it is able to react
with the liquid oxidizer. To do this, a preheater grain (similar to a solid motor grain) is typically
ignited which then ignites the main reaction between oxidizer and solid fuel lining. The reaction
completes when there is no more oxidizer left.
3.3.2.1.1 Advantages
The hybrid motor has several advantages. While it is more complex than a solid motor,
the hybrid motor is still relatively simple. The motor is also fully reusable except for the fuel
grain. Due to this, the startup cost may be higher for initial motor construction or purchase but
cost per launch is well below that of a completely new solid motor due to only having to
purchase fuel. The reaction is also completely controlled by the flow rate of oxidizer into the
combustion chamber which makes this the safest option of the three engine types.
3.3.2.1.2 Disadvantages
The main disadvantage of the hybrid motor is that it is less powerful for its weight than
either solid or liquid fuels. It is also very hard to predict and model how the reaction occurs in
the combustion chamber and relies heavily on experimentation to determine the optimal
24
composition of the solid fuel grain. Furthermore, large hybrids necessary for the operation of
this project are difficult to obtain and have a high start-up cost.
3.3.3 Concept #3: Liquid Motor
Figure 11: Liquid Motor cutaway isometric view
Figure 12: Liquid Motor cross-sectional view
25
3.3.3.1 Overview
A liquid motor operates by injecting both a liquid oxidizer and a liquid fuel into the
combustion chamber to be ignited. Typically, the oxidizer and fuel will have separate tanks
along with their own dedicated pressure feed system or pumps. This requires a lot of complex
piping and thus this type of motor is rarely used outside of professional applications. However,
for this project an alternate and much simplified design has been proposed.
This design still includes two separate tanks for oxidizer and fuel but the fuel tank is
placed within the oxidizer tank and it is pressurized by the oxidizers natural vapor pressure.
Separating the two chemicals is a piston which will run the length of the fuel tank to pump the
fuel into the combustion chamber. The combustion chamber has a nozzle at the rear end and a
liner to prevent the extreme temperatures from melting the casing.
3.3.3.2 Advantages
The main advantage of a liquid engine is its good performance. It has a lot of power for
its weight. The design proposed here has slightly less power than the typical configuration due
to a lower feed pressure but is still in the high end range of solid motors and above that of
hybrid motors. It is also very easy to model the reaction and predict the optimal ratio of
oxidizer to fuel. Controlling the feed rate is as simple as changing the injector orifices and
therefore this engine provides the most operator control out of any of the three.
While this version has been much simplified from the typical liquid engine arrangement,
it is still the most complicated out of the three proposed for this project. Being so, it is also the
26
most expensive initially and the most time consuming. Since this configuration has only been
attempted once or twice previously, considerable testing would be necessary to ensure that it
is safe and reliable.
3.4 ALTITUDE TARGETING SYSTEM (ATS) DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

3.4.1 Concept # 1: Weight Based Targeting System
3.4.1.1 Overview
The engines specific impulse and thrust are chosen so that the vehicle will overshoot
10,000 feet slightly. Weight is then added until the projected apogee is 10,000 feet. This is the
most common method used in competitions of this nature and, if correctly done, can reliably
place the rocket within 5 percent of the target altitude. While this would seem like a very good
performance margin, it still gives projected altitude an error of plus or minus 500 feet. This
method relies partially on careful measurement and flight simulations in addition to
unpredictable factors such as weather, humidity, ground elevation, and motor ignition
anomalies.
3.4.1.2 Advantages
The advantage to this method is that it is fairly accurate with good simulation software
and is the simplest method out of all the options.
27
It is not very accurate or innovative.
3.4.2 Concept #2: Computer Controlled Flaps
Figure 13: ATS Concept #2 - Computer-Controlled Flaps
3.4.2.1 Overview
A set of computer controlled, mechanical flaps can be added to the external rocket
structure. The computer would have sensors for pressure, orientation, and acceleration on
board and uses these sensors to determine the rockets velocity and orientation. From this data
the computer would predict a current flight path to apogee. If the current predicted apogee
deviates from the target apogee, the flaps will open or close to increase or decrease drag until
the current predicted apogee matches the target. The method by which the computer predicts
a flight path is based on an overall coefficient of drag of the rocket which is at first determined
by computer simulations for all flap positions. Once in flight however, any error for this value is
corrected using real-time flight data.
28
3.4.2.2 Advantages
This design is the most potentially accurate and precise system for achieving a target altitude.
To utilize this design, a complicated mechanism must be created to control flap angle
precisely. It also must be extremely strong to support the high loads and probable shock wave
formation it will encounter at speeds of up to Mach 1. Due to the added strength requirements,
this feature would add significant weight to the design which in turn will require stronger
materials and a bigger motor, resulting in a greatly increased total weight. In addition, the code
that needs to be generated for successful operation of this concept is extremely complicated
and must utilize methods unfamiliar to undergraduate students. All in all, this concept is
enough for a senior design project or more on its own.
29
3.4.3 Concept #3: Computer Deployed Parachute Brake
Figure 14: ATS Concept #3- Computer-deployed Airbrake Parachute
3.4.3.1 Overview
The third ATS concept proposes deploying an airbrake parachute from the rear section
of the rocket on ascent such that, if the rocket is going faster than necessary and the flight
computer predicts it will overshoot the 10,000 ft. target apogee, then the deployed airbrake
ensures the rocket stops at the target. A flight computer will be used to determine when the
optimal time to deploy is. It will achieve this by using a combined rocket and parachute
coefficient of drag to estimate the current flight path and predicted apogee if the parachute
was deployed. Once the predicted apogee equals the target apogee, the parachute will be
deployed.
3.4.3.2 Advantages
This design is simpler than the flap air brake method. Instead of using complicated
equations to predict the rockets flight path, the relatively short stopping distance afforded by a
parachute allows the assumption of projectile motion with drag.
30
The method for ejecting a parachute is to create pressure in the parachute bay by igniting
black powder charges. When predicting when to deploy the parachute to achieve a desired
altitude, the computer must take into account the time required for the parachute to actually
deploy, including how long it takes to set off a black powder charge, how long it takes to eject
the parachute, and how long it takes for the parachute to unfurl, as well as the transient
coefficient of drag produced during the unfurling process. This requires extensive testing and
timing to come up with even a marginally accurate number. This process is the biggest source
of error in the design.
31
3.5 RECOVERY SYSTEM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

3.5.1 Concept #1: Standard Dual Deployment Configuration
Figure 15: Recovery Concept #1 - Standard Dual Deployment
3.5.1.1 Overview
In a typical rocket, there exists a central electronics bay which houses the flight
computers that control parachute deployment. The drogue parachute bay is usually located
below the electronics bay and the main parachute is located above. The entire rocket is
tethered together via shock cords on which the parachutes are tied as well. At apogee, the
lower section of the rocket is separated to deploy the drogue parachute for a quick but
controlled descent to low altitude. Upon nearing the ground, the upper section of the rocket is
blown off, ejecting the main parachute to carry the rocket slowly and safely the rest of the
distance to the ground.
32
3.5.1.2 Advantages
The advantage to this system is its simplicity and known reliability. This design is the
standard for all high-powered rockets.
The inclusion of two parachute bays provides a relatively long rocket which not only
adds weight but additional drag as well. The multiple connections also add more points of
potential failure.
3.5.2 Concept #2: Single Parachute Bay Dual Deployment
Figure 16: Recovery Concept #2 - Single Parachute Bay Dual Deployment (1)
33
Figure 17: Recovery Concept #2 - Single Parachute Bay Dual Deployment (2)
3.5.2.1 Overview
The idea with this design is to incorporate the drogue and the main parachute into the
same bay but still have them deployed at the same time. To achieve this, both parachutes are
tied to the same line. The difference lies in the attachment method. Normally parachutes are
simply folded and stuffed into the bay. For this method the drogue follows that procedure. The
main parachute however is tied tightly to the line so that when the rocket is initially broken
open, only the drogue deploys and the main does not open. When the rocket reaches a low
enough altitude, a cable cutter device will cut the line binding the main to the shock cord and it
will deploy for the remainder of the rockets descent.
34
3.5.2.2 Advantages
This design allows significant space and weight savings. It also simplifies the overall
design of the rocket including electronics bay.
The cable cutter mechanism is controlled via black powder charges and standard ematches. This requires a wire be run along the shock cord to the device and be exposed to the
wind generated by a quick descent. There is potential that the cable, if not tightly bound to the
shock cord, can pull out from the cable cutter and cause a failure to deploy. Another potential
issue is that the cable binding the main parachute may not be tight enough and the parachute
will deploy prematurely.
3.6 INTEGRATION OF GLOBAL DESIGN ELEMENTS

Effort has been made to comply with global design requirements including keeping the
cost low so developing countries interested in this technology can access it more easily.
Common, easily obtained materials will be used as well.
3.7 FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT

All aspects discussed in the previous sections are considered feasible for this project
except the liquid motor design. Due to the high cost, and unknown development cycle, this
design was considered too risky to attempt for this project.
35
4 PROPOSED DESIGN
Figure 18: Proposed Rocket Design for IREC competition
4.1 AIRFRAME
The selected airframe design was Concept #3, utilizing a single large lower body tube with
a transition to a smaller one up top. This selection was based on the selected air brake system
and the goal of reducing as much weight and cost as possible. The proposed dimensions (in
inches) for the rocket are shown below.
Figure 19: Airframe Dimensions (in)

36
4.2 PROPULSION SYSTEM

4.2.1 Overview
Due to the overall complexity of this project, it was decided that a solid motor would be
utilized as the propulsion system. Design and manufacturing of a hybrid or liquid rocket motor
in itself is greater than the scope of a senior design project, and the inclusion of an altitude
targeting system negated the requirement for a controlled or gimbaled thrust.
The chosen solid motor consists of an outer reusable case, and a disposable reload. The
reload is inserted into the case and enclosed with included hardware. Once assembled, an
igniter is inserted into until it reaches the top of the motor. At this step, the motor is ready to
be ignited.
Due to the simplicity of this system, further discussion and details of the motor have been
included in the body sections of subsequent sections in this report.
4.2.2 Casing
The Cesaroni High-Power Rocket Motor System has been chosen as the casing due to its
simplicity and compatibility with reloads from multiple manufacturers. Seen in Figure 17 is the
motor casing, forward closure and retaining ring.
37
Figure 20: Motor Casing Forward Closure
The rear closure and retaining ring can be seen in Figure 18 along with the lower half of
the casing and a tool to grip and tighten the retaining ring.
Figure 21: Motor Casing Rear Closure
4.2.3 Reload
Motor selection is sparse within the thrust range needed for this rocket so a reload was
tentatively chosen based on a 10,000 ft. AGL minimum requirement. This was the Aerotech M1939 rocket motor.
38
Figure 22: Selected Motor Characteristics
39
Figure 23: Aerotech M1939 Motor Thrust Curve
4.2.4 Retainer
To secure the motor-reload assembly in place for the transfer of thrust to the rocket
body, a retainer is used. The retainer acts as the interface between the casing and the motor
mount which, in turn, is attached to the body. Conventional retainers are located at the bottom
of the motor and are bulky and wider than the motor mount. This would conflict with the
design of the airbrake system so another solution was needed.
40
Figure 24: Aeropack Minimum Diameter retainer
The choice was made to use an Aeropack minimum diameter retainer. This device retains
the motor assembly from above and within the motor mount itself. The retainer is glued in to
the motor mount and the motor assembly is screwed in to it from the bottom.
4.3 ALTITUDE TARGETING SYSTEM

4.3.1 Overview
The chosen altitude targeting system was Concept #3. This option was chosen because it
provided the best balance between complexity and simplicity and was determined to be
feasible for the senior design team size of 3 students. As stated previously, this design functions
by predicting when to deploy the airbrake parachute out the back of the rocket so that it
attains an apogee of exactly 10,000 feet. The process begins after launch when the onboard
computer starts actively predicting what the maximum altitude would be if the parachute was
deployed at the current time. To account for the time it takes to eject the parachute, a user set
41
delay time is built in to the system. Once the predicted apogee equals or falls within a certain
range of the target apogee, the parachute brake is deployed.
4.3.2 Electronics
To control this system, the flight computer that controls the vehicle recovery sequence
was modified to include a new functionality for the air brake system. The device includes a
barometer, accelerometer, and a multi-axis gyroscope. With that raw date, it then determines
the rockets altitude, orientation, and velocity which are input into an algorithm that iteratively
predicts the rockets apogee if the brake were deployed at that instant. The device is located
inside the avionics bay.
4.3.3 Construction
The parachute to be deployed must be ejected out the rear of the rocket and must be
attached in a way that the force vector is directed along the central axis of the rocket. To
accomplish this, it was decided that the parachute bay would be located in between the motor
mount tube and the outer body tube. The parachutes shroud lines are attached to 4 shock
cords which in turn are secured to eyebolts on a centering ring inside the rocket structure.
42
Figure 25: Airbrake Shock Cord Attachment Scheme
When packing the parachute in this configuration it is apparent that it must go around
the motor mount. To deal with this, we opted to use a parachute with a central spill hole. The
parachute is folded into a cylindrical shape with the spill hole at the bottom end. The shock
cords and shroud lines are neatly folded and them shroud lines, shock cords, and parachute are
inserted into the air brake bay.
Figure 26: Rear view of airframe depicting airbrake parachute bay
43
To secure the parachute in the bay a piston is inserted below it and pinned into place
using small shear pins. These pins are strong enough to keep the parachute in during the thrust
phase but are designed to break once the deployment charge goes off. In addition, this piston is
tethered to the spillhole section of the parachute so that it doesnt get lost and actually helps to
pull the parachute out once exposed to the air stream.
Figure 27: Airbrake Parachute Bay Rear closure
4.4 RECOVERY SYSTEM

A modified version of Concept #2 was chosen as the recovery system. Instead of both a
drogue and a main parachute on the shock cord just the main will be present. Because the air
44
brake will also double as a drogue it was determined that it wasnt necessary to have a
redundant one. However, the body section is still broken open after apogee which creates
enough drag that the rocket will still maintain a decent descent rate in the case that the
airbrake parachute fails.
4.4.1 Electronics
Figure 28: Altus Telemega flight computer

The recovery electronics include a flight computer, ejection terminals, and a safety
switch. The chosen flight computer is the Altus Metrum Telemega. This computer features a 3
axis gyroscope, a 3 axis accelerometer, a GPS, and a barometer. It includes I/O ports for data
transfer and several pyro channels which are used to ignite black powder charges for
parachute deployment.
The pyro channels are connected to terminals which are mounted on bulkheads within
the rocket. The terminals are then connected to the actual black powder charges which deploy
45
the parachutes when ignited. For safety reasons an external switch is required to be accessible
from outside the rocket which disables the electronics inside. This is to prevent any fluctuations
in current or short circuits from prematurely igniting any charges.
4.4.2 Parachutes and Rigging

Up until it the time comes to deploy, the parachute bay is held securely together by
shear pins. These pins are designed to be strong enough to hold the rocket together against
drag and air brake forces but able to be broken upon black powder ignition. After the signal is
given from the flight computer to eject, the black powder charge is ignited. These charges must
be sized correctly in order to provide enough force to force the parachute out or the section
apart without damaging the airframe.
The parachute itself is attached to the shock cord which in turn is attached to both the
section above it and below it by eyebolts. The shock cord is made out of Kevlar with a high
tensile strength and moderate elasticity to absorb the force of ejection.
4.4.3 Sequence of Events

The recovery sequence begins after the rocket has obtained apogee, presumably with the
successful deployment of the air brake parachute. Once apogee has been detected by the flight
computer it sends the signal to break open the parachute bay and separate the payload bay
and nosecone from the rest of the rocket, connected via a shock cord. The purpose of this is to
prevent a ballistic trajectory in the case that the air brake parachute failed. It will destabilize the
rocket and cause it to descend at a quick but manageable rate. If the air brake did successfully
deploy then it serves as the drogue parachute. At this point, the main parachute is still tied
46
securely to the shock cord. The rocket descends in a controlled manner to 1000 feet where a
signal is sent to a cable cutter located on the cable which is binding the main parachute. The
parachute is freed and deploys, further decreasing descent rate to a velocity which will provide
a safe landing.
Figure 29: Parachute Release Cable Cutter
4.4.3.1 Cable Cutter Mechanism

The cable cutter consists of a hollow cylinder with an internal piston and a black powder
charger on one end. A zip tie is threaded through the cylinder in front of the piston and then
used to bind the parachute. When it is time for the parachute to be released the black powder
charge is ignited, creating pressure behind the cylinder and causing it to cut through the cable.
47
5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
5.1 OVERVIEW
A good project has an established plan that is followed meticulously including
documentation of each milestone and project objective to serve as an aid in keeping team
direction and focus. As such, an outline depicting milestones, deadlines, and responsibilities of
each team member was established to identify the required objectives and considerations in
different aspects of the project. The following sections include a Gantt chart with the schedule
of project milestones as well as a division of responsibilities for each team member. Since the
teams focus was on building the rocket to compete at the 16th annual Intercollegiate Rocket
Engineering Competition, special attention to the schedule was made in order to keep current
and within competition deadlines. The team also followed the typical project milestones such
as a Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Flight Readiness Review, and Launch
Readiness Review, implemented by NASA in designing, building, and testing rocket technology.
The team was familiar in using this method from experience obtained during their involvement
in the 2015 NASA Student Launch competition, and will do so again when competing in the
2016 IREC.
48
5.2 BREAKDOWN OF WORK INTO SPECIFIC TASKS

The project will comprise of the following main tasks: modelling and simulations of
designs, manufacturing the full-scale rocket and rocket prototype (subscale), and ground and
flight tests. A breakdown of each task is included in the following table.
Table 1: Project Tasks

Main Task
Modelling and Simulations
Manufacturing and Assembly
Testing
Sub tasks
Design Conceptualizing
CAD modelling
Structural analysis
Fluid flow analysis
Coding of Altitude Targeting System
Airframe machining
Build rocket prototype (subscale)
Integration of components
Assemble full-scale rocket
Ground ejection tests
Static Fire
Subscale flight test
Full-scale flight test
Research
Design, Analysis, Simulation
Prototyping
Manufacturing and Assembly
Testing
Presentation & Final Report
49
Dec-15
Nov-15
Oct-15
Sep-15
Aug-15
Jul-15
Jun-15
May-15
Apr-15
Mar-15
Feb-15
Jan-15
5.3 GANTT CHART FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF WORK AND TIMELINE
5.4 BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG TEAM MEMBERS
Table 2: Team Member Responsibilities

Team Member
Responsibilities
Maryel A. Gonzalez
Christopher Hayes
Research and design of rocket

SolidWorks modeling and simulations
Rocket assembly and testing
Giancarlo Lombardi
Flight computer coding and integration

Testing and manufacturing of rocket subscale rocket
Airframe material analysis
Sounding rocket research

Rocket assembly and testing
Structural analysis
Project fundraising
50
6 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
Figure 30: Mesh Model of the Rocket Used for Flight Simulations
6.1 OVERVIEW
The engineering design and analysis section details the procedures and methods
implemented to determine the technical specifications of each component on the rocket. The
overall goal of this project, to carrying a 10 pound payload as close to 10,000 feet as possible, is
accomplished via the Altitude Targeting System (ATS). Because of this, the ATS dictates the
design features and specifications of almost every other component on the rocket. This section
begins by explaining in detail the ATS, how it operates, and the research and simulations that
were required to refine the design. Subsequent sections will describe the rest of the rocket
components and illustrate the dependency of their design on the ATS.
51
6.2 ALTITUDE TARGETING SYSTEM

The Altitude Targeting System (ATS) ensures that the rocket attains an apogee closest to
the target altitude. The ATS consists of an airbrake parachute that is deployed, on ascent, at an
altitude lower than apogee. The airbrake drastically increases the coefficient of drag of the
rocket. Thus, the rocket experiences a strong drag force that aids in slowing the rocket. The
underlying assumption when designing the ATS is that the faster the rocket is decelerated, the
airbrake accuracy is higher.
6.2.1 Airbrake Parachute Sizing

The most vital parameter to affect drag in the altitude targeting system is the diameter
of the parachute. Since the rocket itself is assumed to be traveling parallel to the airflow, the
cross-sectional area of the parachute dominates the flow and inherently induces the most drag.
As such, it is crucial to evaluate the effects of varying parachute diameter in the airflow.
SolidWorks Flow Simulation was used to predict the airflows generated when the
airbrake parachute has been deployed. For simulation purposes, the parachute was modeled as
a simple hollow semi-circle. Although this does not fully capture the drag effects of a fabric
parachute vibrating with the airflow, it was determined that this model would closely
approximate the true drag effects of the parachute.
The goal of this analysis was to determine the drag forces generated by the airbrake on
deployment. As such, a range of airflow velocities for varying airbrake diameters consisted the
scope of this investigation. With these parameters, it was desired to obtain the forces the
airframe would experience at the deployment of the airbrake. Therefore, the simulation
52
iterations went as such: start with the smallest diameter taken into consideration and deploy
it at the slowest airflow speed; increase the airflow speed at deployment until the maximum
acceptable airflow speed has been reached; increase airbrake diameter and start from smallest
airflow speed. This simulation iteration plan was followed until the maximum acceptable
airflow speed at deployment was imposed on the largest parachute.
The team desired the largest possible diameter for the airbrake in order to induce the
greatest drag. A large drag ensures the airbrake slows the rocket at a faster rate, increasing the
accuracy of the altitude targeting system. However, the team determined that the drag force of
the parachute transferred on to the rocket airframe should not surpass 650 lbf. This value was
determined empirically from the teams past involvement in the NASA Student Launch
competition. At a test launch, parachutes failed to deploy at apogee, instead deploying at a
much lower altitude after accumulating a significant amount of speed (300 ft./s). At those great
speeds, the airframe (similarly built: carbon-reinforced phenolic) survived the shock of
parachute deployment. For this reason, not wanting to incur greater loads on the airframe, the
maximum speed at which the team considers it safe to deploy the airbrake is at 300 ft./s.
6.2.1.1 Full-Scale Airbrake

The competition requirements call for the rocket to attain an altitude of 10,000 feet
above ground level (AGL). For this, it is important to note that the launch location (Green River,
UT) has an elevation of 4,500 feet. As such, the actual altitude the rocket, when launched from
Green River, attains an altitude of approximately 15,000 feet. Atmospheric conditions at 15,000
feet are as follows:
53
Pressure = 8.29 psi (1193.8 lbf/ft^2)
Density = 0.04813 lbm/ft^3
These conditions were input as parameters for the flow simulations since it is desired for the
airbrake to deploy near the desired apogee altitude of 15,000 ft (10,000 ft AGL).
The following figures illustrate the simulation results for the sizing iterations. The airbrake
diameters taken into consideration (2 ft., 3 ft., and 4 ft.) were determined using the teams past
experience with rockets. Included for the highest and lowest expected drag forces (4 ft.
parachute at 300 ft./s and 2 ft. parachute at 50 ft./s, respectively) are pressure and velocity
contour plots as well as streamlines visually depicting the air flow interactions between the
rocket and airbrake.
The following figures 31 through 33 illustrate the pressure and velocity contour plots and
streamlines for an airbrake diameter of 2 ft. and an airflow of 50ft./s.
Figure 31: Relative Pressure (2 ft.; 50 ft./s)
54
Figure 32: Velocity (2 ft.; 50 ft./s)
Figure 33: Flow Trajectories (2 ft.; 50 ft./s)
55
In contrast, figures 34 through 36 show the pressure and velocity contour plots and
streamlines for an airbrake diameter of 4 ft. and an airflow of 300ft./s. When compared, it is a
clear distinction of the effects and resistance experienced by the parachute as the parameters
of diameter and airflow speed increase.
Figure 34: Relative Pressure (4 ft.; 300 ft./s)
Figure 35: Velocity (4 ft.; 300 ft./s)
56
Figure 36: Flow Trajectories (4 ft.; 300 ft./s)
Having the previous plots data aided the team in visualizing the expected flows around
the rocket-airbrake model and the instantaneous pressure and velocity profiles at the moment
of deployment. As can be seen, the flow of air did not change significantly with velocity. Also,
placing the airbrake at least 2 feet aft of the rocket ensures there are no adverse interactions of
the rocket airframe with the airbrake. However, of highest importance, the drag forces
experienced by the airbrake at each case is provided in Table 3.
Table 3: Force (lbf) experienced by airframe
Airbrake Diameter
Velocity of airflow at deployment

50 ft./s
150 ft./s
300 ft./s
2 ft.
38
149
3 ft.
71
285
4 ft.
18
157
636
57
As was expected, the largest diameter (4ft.) airbrake deployed at the fastest acceptable
speed (300 ft./s) induced the greatest drag force (636 lbf). As such, the full scale rocket utilizes
a 4 ft. airbrake parachute.
6.2.1.2 Subscale Airbrake

The subscale rocket must not experience the same magnitude of drag force as the full
scale since this would compromise the structural integrity of the subscale airframe. Therefore, a
smaller airbrake parachute must be utilized for the subscale rockets Altitude Targeting System.
An acceptable force that the 4 inch airframe of the subscale should experience is 200 poundsforce. Referencing the table of drag forces generated by different airbrake sizes and taking into
account the limited volume of the subscale airbrake bay, the ideal airbrake parachute size is 2
ft.
6.2.2 Electronics
The ATS electronics must provide two important functionalities in order for a successful
flight of the rocket. One, the electronics must be able to handle data acquisition of important
parameters that show construct the flight profile (i.e. altitude, velocity, and acceleration versus
time) as well as the rockets location. The ATS electronics also need to handle logic for the
deployment of the airbrake and recovery systems.
58
6.2.2.1 Data Acquisition

For the purpose of data acquisition and storage, the Altus Telemega was selected for its
various onboard instruments and functionalities. A list of its onboard instruments is shown
below:
3-axis accelerometer
3-axis gyroscope
GPS
Barometer
The 3-axis accelerometer is used to calibrate the 3-axis gyroscope. The orientation of
the rocket on ascent is desired in order to accurately take into account the drag force
generated by the airbrake once deployed. Additionally, the accelerometer provides velocity
readings that are necessary for iteratively predicting the altitude where the airbrake should be
deployed for attaining the target apogee.
Just as important, the onboard barometric pressure sensor takes atmospheric samples
of pressure and, given the linear relationship of altitude and atmospheric pressure, interpolates
the present altitude of the rocket. A GPS unit is also needed on the flight computer for recovery
purposes. Since the rocket will be reaching a very high altitude, it will be drifting far from the
Launchpad due to wind. As such, the GPS unit allows for the location of the rocket once it has
safely landed.
59
6.2.2.2 Computations
To accurately predict the distance the rocket will travel under air-brake an onboard
computer must be used, running calculations in real-time. The final solution was to modify the
Telemega to expand its functionality to include an altitude targeting mode.
6.2.3 Software
6.2.3.1 Equations
An algorithm for the logic driving the deployment of the airbrake does not, to the
teams knowledge and research, currently exist. As such, the equations governing the flight of a
rocket had to be researched. Derived from Tsiolkovskys Rocket Equation, the following
equations provide a thorough prediction of altitude for a rocket taking into account motor
characteristics, rocket profile, and atmospheric drag. First, some intermediary calculations
necessary to simplify the desired equations [10] [13]:
1
=
2
= +
= +
1
=
1 +
60
Where:
Cd
A
g
T
I
t
mr
me
mp
mb
mc
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
[kg/m3]
[dimensionless]
[m2]
[9.81 m/s2]
[N]
[N*s]
[s]
[kg]
[kg]
[kg]
[kg]
[kg]
air density
rocket coefficient of drag
rocket cross-sectional area
gravitational acceleration
motor average thrust
total impulse
motor burn time
empty mass of rocket
mass of motor
mass of propellant
mass of boost phase
mass of coast phase
The ascent portion of the flight of a rocket is typically split into two distinct phases:
boost and coast. The boost phase is defined as the period of the flight after ignition but before
burnout (end of propellant burn). The coast phase immediately follows boost and ends when
the rocket has slowed down to zero velocity at its apogee altitude.
The altitude at the rocket will reach at burnout (end of the boost phase) is determined
by Equation 1:
ln (
Eq [1]
The airbrake deployment is not an instantaneous event. It takes a certain amount of

time for the black powder charge to fire and for the parachute to deploy and unfurl. This time is
measured experimentally during an ejection test and must be taken into account in the code
during flight. Two equations are used for this. Equation 2 is used to calculate the velocity after a
given amount of time. Equation 3 is used to calculate the distance traveled during that time.
61
Eq [2]
Eq [3]
The value for Cd*A in the previous equations was the one for a rocket alone. The Once
the air brake is deployed that value changes to be the value for the rocket with a deployed air
brake which is significantly higher. Equation 4 is used to determine the maximum vertical
distance the rocket will travel. It takes the results of equations 2 and 3 as inputs.
ln
+ 2

Eq [4]
Therefore, the true apogee the rocket will reach is the sum of these:
= + +
Eq [5]
However, since the code will be running in real time it will neglect the boost phase from the
equation shown in equation 6.
= +
It is important to note that these equations utilize SI units. The end results for altitude
equations will be given in meters (m). Thus, for converting to English units (feet ft.), results
must be multiplied by 3.28.
62
Apogee:

tan1 ( )
6.2.3.2 Pseudocode for Airbrake Deployment

Before fully implementing the equations into formal code, it is necessary to outline the
intended procedure for airbrake deployment. Once it is understood in what order events take
place, the code must reflect the same order of events.
First, the true apogee which the rocket is expected to reach without the use of the
airbrake must be calculated. Then, applying a time delay, the iterative solver would start after
burnout. The algorithm begins by updating current flight data values such as the y component
of velocity, air density, and altitude. With this data, the iterative solver constantly solves
Equation 6 using airbrake parameters (coefficient of drag, area).The result would reflect the
apogee attained were the airbrake deployed at that very instant. As can be noted, deploying
the airbrake prematurely would result in attaining an apogee much lower than the target
altitude. Thus, as the solver runs on ascent with updated atmospheric and flight data, the
predicted apogee with airbrake deployed approximates the target apogee. For the instance
when the target apogee matches the predicted altitude of airbrake deployment, the solver exits
63
the loop and sends the command to deploy the airbrake. In the event that the rocket has an
apogee lower than the target altitude, the airbrake must still be deployed at apogee in order
for it to control the descent of the rocket.
Table 4: Pseudocode for Airbrake Deployment
Declare and assign values to static variables
- Target Apogee, masses, motor thrust and impulse, rocket area,
airbrake area, Rocket Cd, Airbrake Cd, grav accel.
Declare dynamic variables
- Air density
Calculate intermediate calculations (q, x, t, v) for regular rocket configuration
Calculate Equation 1 and 2 prior to launch to predict true apogee
DELAY XX seconds; // start iterative solver AFTER motor burnout
If (true apogee >= target apogee){
Loop{
READ atmospheric and flight data
- Altitude, air density
Calculate Equation 6 (coasting distance) using Airbrake parameters
Add present altitude of rocket with Eq 2 result to get predicted apogee
If (predicted apogee >= target apogee)
DEPLOY AIRBRAKE;
GOTO DONE;
}
}
Else{
Loop{
READ atmospheric and flight data
- Current altitude, velocity
If (velocity == 0)
DEPLOY AIRBRAKE;
GOTO DONE;
// zero velocity denotes apogee is reached
}
}
DONE
64
6.2.3.3 Code Development

The code was initially developed and tested in Matlab. Once the code functioned as
expected it was sent to a 3rd party who has experience working on the Altus Metrum platform
for implementation. Below is the Matlab code which was submitted.
% Altitude Targeting using Projectile Motion with Drag
clc
clear all
%User Input Variables
at = 2000;
t = .3;
CdA0 = 0.1396;
CdA = 24;
weight = 60;
%Target Altitude
%Experimental Pyro Delay
%Cd*A of Rocket
%Cd*A of Rocket after Airbrake Deployment
%Rocket Weight
%Variables
deploy = 0;
g = 32.18504;
%Acceleration of Gravity
vcurrent = 200;
%Starting Velocity
m = weight/g;
pcurrent = 0.0014947;
%Deployment
for i = 0;
v0 = vcurrent;
p = pcurrent;
k0 = 0.5*p*CdA0;
k = 0.5*p*CdA;
%Update
%Update
%Rocket
%Rocket
Current Velocity from Sensors

Current Air Density from Sensors
K Value
w/ Airbrake K Value
%Deployment Delay Distance

c = (-m/k0)*(log(cos(atan(sqrt(k0/(m*g))*v0))));
y1 = (m/k0)*log(cos((sqrt(g*k0/m)*t)-atan(sqrt(k0/(m*g))*v0)))+c;
%Deployment Velocity
c2 = atan(sqrt(k0/(m*g))*v0);
v1 = (sqrt(m*g/k0))*tan(c2-sqrt(g*k0/m)*t);
%Predicted Apogee
y2 = (m/(2*k))*log(((m*g)+(k*v1^2))/(m*g));
y3 = y2+y1;
if y3 < at;
i = 0;
else i = 1;
65
deploy = 1;
%Overshoot
y5 = (m/(2*k0))*log(((m*g)+(k0*v0^2))/(m*g));
yo = y5 - y2;
%Force at Deployment
F = k*(v1^2);
%Displays
disp ('Deployment Velocity');
disp(v1);
disp('Deployment Delay Distance');
disp(y1);
disp ('Distance Under Airbrake');
disp (y2);
disp ('Total Distance');
disp (y3);
disp ('Force at Deployment');
disp (F);
disp ('Overshoot Distance');
disp (yo);
66
6.3 AIRFRAME
From this section on the primary focus will be on the subscale version of the rocket as this
will be the product delivered upon completion of this report. The subscale rocket is a one half
scale version of the full-scale and any variances in this relationship have been included for each
section.
6.3.1 Introduction
The airframe consists of all structural components including the body, bulkheads,
centering rings, and related hardware. As such, this system is supporting the full force of liftoff
and other forceful events such as parachute deployment and landing. The main alternatives
considered for the airframe were the vehicle configuration and material choice. For instance,
the materials for the airframe, or body of the rocket, considered were Phenolic tubing,
Fiberglass, Carbon fiber, and Aluminum. Preliminary analysis helped define the compressive
and tensile strength of these materials while undergoing forces at liftoff. Such simulations
yielded the material properties which, along with cost and workability information, were used
to determine the material that would best suit the requirements of this project. Parts such as
centering rings, bulkheads, and couplers are typically constructed from plywood or fiberglass
and they did not need much consideration apart from choosing proper sizes. Finally,
miscellaneous hardware such as eyebolts, quick links, and types of glue were considered mainly
on durability, and capabilities to withstand loads expected during parachute deployment.
67
Figure 37: Airframe Geometry Labels
68
6.3.2 Tubes
6.3.2.1 Sizing
The rocket airframe consists of 8 body and coupler tubes. All tubes are .065 in thick.
Their sizes are listed in the chart below with tubes corresponding to the part numbers in figure
37.
Table 5: Parts and Sizes by Numbers
Part #
Name
Payload Bay
Inner Diameter (in)

3.002
Length (in)
Payload Bay Coupler
2.88
6.0
Parachute Bay
3.002
21.0
Inner Avionics Bay Tube
2.88
12.0
10
Avionics Bay Retainer Tube
3.9
1.5
13
Lower Airframe Body
3.9
29.0
16
Motor Mount
1.525
20.0
18
Outer Avionics Bay Tube
3.78
9.0
6.0
6.3.2.2 Material Selection

The chosen material was phenolic infused paper tubes wrapped in a layer of fiberglass.
Phenolic tubes have a compressive and tensile strength of around 7,000 psi. With 0.8 square
inches of cross sectional area, the phenolic tubes alone can theoretically handle a thrust force
69
of up to 5666 lbf. Phenolic however is a brittle material and can crack easily when subjected to
bending forces. These forces can occur when parts of the rocket come into contact during
recovery or upon landing. To mitigate the risk it was decided the tubes would also be wrapped
in a layer of fiberglass which is resilient against bending. Fiberglass with epoxy resin has a
compressive and tensile strength of anywhere from 15,000 to 40,000 psi and with a cross
sectional area of .1 square inches, it adds at least 1,500 psi of additional compressive and
tensile strength to the body tubes as well as helping to protect the tubes from being damaged.
6.3.3 Avionics Bay Parts
70
Table 6: Parts Names and Descriptions

Part #
1
Name
Lower Avionics Bay
Bulkhead
Description
Located on the bottom of the avionics bay, its purpose is to
seal the avionics bay against ejection charge blasts and also
serve as structural support.
Dimensions
Lower Avionics Bay
Spacer Bulkhead
Diameter: 3.9 in
Attached to the larger bulkhead, this bulkhead ensures that
the assembly remains centered with the outer avionics bay
tube and resides within it.
Dimensions
Avionics Bay Centering
Rings
Diameter: 3.78 in
The avionics bay centering rings ensure the inner tube is
aligned axially with the outer tube and provide supper and
structural strength.
Dimensions
ID: 3.002 in
OD: 3.78 in
Thickness: 0.75 in
The key switch is used to disarm the flight computers while
packing ejection charges and inserting motor igniter. It is
controlled by inserting a key and turning it to disarm mode.
Once those tasks have occurred, the key may be turned back
and removed and the rocket is ready for flight.
Key Switch
Dimensions
Threaded Retention
Rods
Shaft Diameter: 0.75 in

Two threaded rods run through the length of the avionics
bay and are secured by wing nuts on either end which clamp
to the bulkheads. These nuts serve multiple purposes. First
they seal the avionics bay by pulling the upper and lower
bulkheads together. Second, they carry the tensile load
subjected to the bay during parachute ejection. 3rd, they act
as a guide and mount for the avionics sled. They are 13.5
inches long which leaves 0.75 inches of threads exposed on
either side of the bay.
71
Upper Avionics Bay

Bulkhead
The upper electronics bay bulkhead serves the same

purpose as the lower one.
Upper Avionics Bay

Spacer Bulkhead
Diameter: 3.002 in
The upper avionics bay spacer bulkhead serves the same
purpose as the lower one.
Avionics Sled
Battery
10
Flight Computer
11
Avionics Bay Retainer

Tube
12
Charge Terminal
Diameter: 2.88 inch

The avionics sled is made from G10 fiberglass. It serves as
the mounting board for all flight electronics and related
hardware. It includes 4 metal spacers glued to each corner
which enables it to slide along the retention rods.
Length: 10.0 in
Width: 2.75 in
Shown in the picture is a 9 volt battery. However, the final
selection was a 3.7 volt lithium polymer battery which was
supplied with the Altus Metrum. It is secured to the board
via a zip tie and small restraining walls made from G10.
The flight computer is the Altus Metrum Telemega. It is
secured to the board using screws and is mounted on small
spacers.
The retaining tube servers two purposes. The first purpose is
to transfer the load from the bottom tube through to the
parachute bay. The second is to provide a mounting point
for the key switch.
Charge terminals are placed anywhere charges will need to
be fired. There are two on the upper bulkhead and one on
the lower. Each charge terminal includes two leads for
positive and negative wires. They are made from tough
plastic to resist the force of the blasts.
72
6.3.4 Other Parts

6.3.4.1 Nosecone
Shown above are the nosecone dimensions. It is an ogive shape and is made of plastic.
Due to it being at the top of the rocket, it is subjected to purely aerodynamic loads and can be
constructed from light weight, low strength materials. Additionally, since the max velocity is
well below supersonic speeds, aerodynamic heating considerations need not be taken into
account.
6.3.4.2 Payload Bay Bulkhead

All bulkheads are made from either wood or G10 fiberglass. G10 fiberglass was used
where hardware is attached or extra strength was required. The G10 bulkhead thickness is
0.093 in and the wooden bulkhead thickness is 0.25 inches.
73
6.3.4.3 Lower Centering Rings
The two lower centering rings are responsible for transferring the force from the motor
mount tube to the lower body tube. For this reason they were constructed of G10 fiberglass.
Additionally, they includes large holes to allow the pressure wave from the air brake charge to
74
propagate down to the air brake bay. Their inner diameter is 1.5 inches and outer diameter is
3.9 inches.
6.3.4.4 Transition
Figure 38: 3D Printed Transition
The transition is used to minimize drag by helping to maintain laminar flow over the
portion of the rocket where the diameter is increased. Since it serves no structural purpose, 3d
printing was chosen as the method of fabrication and it was made out of PLA at a 10% fill
setting. It is 3 inches tall and its outer diameter match those of the retaining tube and payload
bay tube. Shown in figure 38 is a transparent view to illustrate the cross sectional shape of the
transition, and how it fits.
75
6.3.4.5 Minimum Diameter Motor Retainer
Figure 39: CAD - Minimum Diameter Retainer
The minimum diameter motor retainer is used to prevent the motor from falling out of the
rocket. Traditionally, motors are retained from the bottom of the rocket. Due to the unusually
requirements of having a brake parachute deploy out of the bottom, this was not possible. The
motor simply screws up into the retainer and unscrews out after the flight is concluded.
6.4 FINS
The purpose of the fins are to provide stability to the rocket. They accomplish this by
lowering the center of pressure and their effectiveness at this is directly related to the area of
76
the face and number of fins. After area is determined, the shape of the fins can be optimized to
increase strength and reduce drag.
6.4.1 Shape
Figure 40: Fin Dimensions
The fin shape that was chosen is similar to three sides of a hexagon. This shape has a
short semi span leading to reduced cross sectional area to the oncoming flow. This helps
minimize the drag cause by the fins. In addition the short semi span reduces the bending
moment resulting in a stiffer fin. The face area is maintained because the root cord is long and
area is spread out length wise. The stiffer fin design also allows for a thinner material be used
further increase performance. One other benefit to this design is that the obtuse fin angles
have a reduced chance of sustaining damage on hard or awkward landings.
77
6.4.2 Sizing
6.4.2.1 Subscale
Once the fin shape was chosen a suitable size needed to be determined. As described
previously in the literature survey, one of the most important considerations to take into
account when designing a rocket is stability. On a rocket stability is the basically determined by
the ratio of the distance between center of gravity (CG) and center of pressure (CP), and the
body diameter. This value is called the stability margin. In order for a rocket to be stable it
needs to have a stability margin of about 1. Typical self-stabilizing rockets will have stability
margins of 1.0 4.5. Any higher and the rocket will react severely to changes in wind direction
and by turning into the wind, causing the rocket to arc much lower than normal.
The stability of a rocket can be altered in two ways. The first is by changing the fin size.
Larger fins will lower the center of pressure, resulting in a higher stability. Smaller fins will do
the opposite. The other way is to remove or add weight to the rocket. To increase stability,
weight can be added to the nose cone, which in turn raises the center of gravity and therefore
the stability margin. Removing weight from the base will have the same effect.
When designing the rocket Rocksim was used to calculate the center of gravity based on
the specified materials and their respective sizes and densities. The target stability margin was
2.0 for the final rocket. To account for variations in the mass of the physical rocket resulting in a
lower center of gravity, a slightly higher stability margin was needed in the design. To achieve
this, the fin size was gradually increased until the stability was 2.4 and even number dimensions
were chosen for ease of construction. The final selected dimensions are shown below.
78
Figure 41: FinSim Dimensions User Interface
The fin thickness which can also be shown in figure 41 was determined by simulation
which is described in a subsequent section.
6.4.3 Material
The material that was chosen for fins is G10 fiberglass. G10 fiberglass made from layers of
fiberglass cloth compressed and impregnated with epoxy resin. It was chosen due to its
excellent strength and resiliency. Properties of G10 fiberglass are shown in the chart below.
Table 7: G10 Fiberglass Material Properties
Property
Density
Tensile Strength
-Lengthwise
-Crosswise
Flexural Strength
Value
0.065
Unit
lb/in^3
psi
45,000
38,000
psi
79
-Lengthwise
75,000
-Crosswise
65,000
Flexural Modulus
-Lengthwise
2,700
-Crosswise
2,400
Compressive Strength
65,000
Rockwell Hardness M
M110
Coefficient of Linear Thermal
Expansion
-Lengthwise
0.55
-Crosswise
0.66
Max Operating Temp.
284
Thermal Conductivity
2.0
kpsi
psi
(x10^-5 in/in/degF)
(deg F)
(BTU*in/ft^2*hr*degF)
6.4.4 Simulation
6.4.4.1 Introduction
Simulations are performed on the fins to determine if they are strong enough to
withstand the forces they are subjected to during flight. The two main phenomena that occur
on fins in flight are divergence and flutter.
Divergence is one example of steady state aeroelastic instability. When the critical
divergence velocity is met, any deflection to a fin caused by a wind gust or other source cannot
be recovered properly and a sustained deflection will occur. Flutter is a dynamic instability
wherein a fin or any elastic body will undergo sustained harmonic oscillation. Like divergence,
any change in steady state flight can cause flutter to occur and it usually results in the violent
80
destruction of the fin. Both of these phenomena must be avoided for a successful flight so it is
essential to make sure the rocket never exceeds the critical velocities.
6.4.4.2 Results
To estimate the divergence and flutter velocities a program called AeroFinSim was used.
The results of these simulations allowed us to select an appropriate fin thickness for G10 as well
as compare other materials like plywood and aluminum to confirm that G10 had the most
desirable properties for fins. The results for the final fin configuration are shown below.
Figure 42: FinSim Results
81
The maximum predicted velocity in Rocksim was 409.52 ft./s for 0 wind conditions. The
results of FinSim show that the current fins will be safe to fly and wont experience divergence
or flutter, with a factor of safety of 2.
6.4.5 Comparison to Full-scale

The major differences between full-scale a subscale in fin design are material design and
the stability margin goal. The full-scale fin is constructed of thick plywood laminated by carbon
fiber. At larger sizes fin thickness becomes less of a concern and weight becomes greater.
Plywood with carbon fiber laminate proved to provide better performance than G10 for the
larger application.
The stability margin goal for full-scale was also lower than that of the subscale. Subscale
had a wide variety of motors to choose from and was intended as just a proof of concept of the
design. The altitude goal for the subscale was arbitrary. The full scale stability margin goal was
1.5. This was chosen to minimize effects from wind while being just high enough to ensure
stability. Slight variances in angle caused by wind can have a large effect with altitude goals as
high as 10,000 feet. In addition the chosen full-scale motor, the M1939 is the largest motor
available for the full-scale design and so a larger motor could not have been chosen if the
predicted altitude dropped below 10,000 feet for worst case conditions.
82
6.5 RECOVERY SYSTEM

6.5.1 Mechanical Components
Table 8: Mechanical Components and Descriptions
Component
Main Parachute
Description
The main parachute is 48 inches in
diameter with a 5 inch spill hole. The spill
hole allows for air to escape which
prevents air from circulating inside the
parachute, therefore increasing drag.
Shock Cord
The shock cord is inch wide braided

Kevlar. It has a tensile strength of 2,500 lb,
well beyond what the subscale rocket
should ever experience.
Eye Bolts
The eyebolts are steel.
83
Picture
6.5.2 Electronics
6.5.2.1 Terminals
Block terminals were mounted to the upper and lower avionics bay bulkheads. These
terminals served as the interface between the permanent wires connected to the bay and the
electric matches used to ignite the charges. The simple screw down clamp design allowed for
quick and easy switching of the electric matches.
84
6.5.2.2 Wiring Diagram
Figure 43: Avionics Bay Wiring Diagram
The Avionics bay wiring diagram can be seen above. The electronics were wired so that the sled
is completely removable. To achieve this, board electronics were connected to the rocket
charges and switch via an 8 pin Molex wire connector. Of note is that there are two switches,
one on the board and one mounted to the rocket body, wired in parallel. This is necessary for
85
the board to be so that the board can be switched on and off while it is disconnected. When the
board is connected the onboard switch is to remain in the off position, allowing current to
bypass it to the external key switch.
6.6 LAUNCH SIMULATIONS

6.6.1 Location Weather
The environmental conditions in Green River, Utah, the location of the competition, vary
considerably from the weather conditions where the subscale and full-scale rocket were
constructed and tested, Miami, Florida. Considerations for ground elevation and atmospheric
conditions such as humidity, air density, and temperatures are critical to effectively predict and
simulate how well the rocket and all corresponding systems perform. The competition launch
date is still tentative, but is usually set for the middle of June. Therefore, according to
Weather.com, areavibes.com, usa.com, and accuweather.com - online weather databases - the
weather conditions expected during launch of the rocket for Green River, UT, are the following
[14]:
86
Figure 44: Wind Speeds at launch location (Green River, UT)
Figure 45: Humidity at launch location (Green River, UT)
87
Figure 46: Temperature at launch location (Green River, UT)
Compared to Miami, Florida, the overall conditions expected are as follows:

Table 9: Weather Conditions in Green River, UT
Environmental Conditions in Miami, FL vs. Green River, UT for JUNE
Wind
Humidity
Precipitation
Temperature
Miami,
FLORIDA
High
19.3 mph
Low
2.1 mph
Green River,
UTAH
High
20 mph
Low
9 mph
81%
8.3 inches
38%
.35 inches
87F
77F
93F
55F
These are all important parameters to consider as they greatly affect the flight
performance of the rocket. These weather conditions were set as input parameters into the
flight simulation program, Rocksim, to accurately predict the true altitude achieved.
88
Finally, it is vital to note the launch locations ground elevation. Green River, UT is
located 5,000 feet above sea level. This is especially important considering that the competition
requirements call for the rocket to reach an apogee altitude of 10,000 feet above ground
level. As such, the true altitude the rocket should attain is 15,000 feet above sea level.
6.6.2 Simulation Program
Figure 47: Screenshot of Rocksim UI
The program used to perform flight simulations on the rocket is called Rocksim. Its an
industry standard program with an optional pro version for professional use. To simulate a
rocket in Rocksim the user first designs a rocket from the ground up in the program. All
dimensions including length, width, height, thickness, shape etc. are specified and then a
89
material is chosen for the part, resulting in accurate mass estimates. The program dynamically
calculates center of mass and center of pressure during construction so the user can see the
effects that different parts have on the overall structure.
Once design work is finished, the user can load a motor from a list of several motors
available online or they are able to input custom motor properties including a graphic thrust
curve modeler. After installing the motor the rocket is then ready for simulation. The simulation
tab is opened and various weather parameters and launch conditions are entered and then the
rocket is launched. The simulation will output various parameters such as max velocity and
apogee, as well as create graphs for several parameters and an animation of the flight profile.
6.6.2.1 Rocket Configuration
Figure 48: Rocksim model used for flight simulations
The final design dry weight (without motor) for the subscale was 10 pounds. Given the fin size
and rocket geometry, this gave a stability margin of 2.39. The motor used was the Cesaroni J330
providing 75 pounds of average thrust for a burn time of 2.3 seconds.
90
6.6.2.2 Simulation Conditions
Figure 49: Rocksim UI for inputting Launch Conditions
91
The Rocksim user interface (UI) allows for several inputs to be made to each simulation. These
include a variety of weather settings that allow the user to model a flight for any launch site.
These weather settings include wind speed, pad elevation, temperature, and humidity. Since
the subscale is launched to test locally, weather conditions for Florida were considered as part
of the analysis.
6.6.3 Test Cases

In order to gather the effects of each launch parameter, these were investigated
individually. The main metric for comparison among the various launch parameters (wind
speed, temperature, humidity, etc.) is the altitude attained by the rocket. Since the goal of the
competition is to accurately target a specific altitude, it is desired to see the effect of each
parameter on the altitude. Other secondary parameters that were investigated are the
maximum velocity and acceleration achieved for each flight.
6.6.3.1 Changing Wind Speed

As can be seen from Table 10, wind speed had a minor effect on the maximum altitude
attained by the rocket. Between no wind (0 mph) and breezy conditions (25 mph), the altitude
only dropped by 50 feet.
92
Table 10: Flight Simulation Results Altitude Affected By Wind Speed

Wind (mph)
Max Altitude (ft.)
Max Velocity (ft./s)
2664.13
409.52
0-2
2664.13
409.52
3-7
2660.87
409.46
8-14
2642.6
409.16
15-25
2596.44
408.32
Figure 50: Simulated Flight Profile for Subscale Rocket (wind speed = 0 mph)
93
Figure 51: Cross Wind Speed Effects on Altitude
94
7 PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTION
7.1 OVERVIEW
Having conducted analysis on the final design, the team was ready for construction of
the rocket prototype. Knowing several vendors exist offering rocketry components, the team
sought to buy the strongest materials for the cheapest value. Using previous rocketry expertise,
the team used known materials and techniques to construct the rocket.
7.2 PARTS LIST

The following sections provide an in-depth cost breakdown of parts needed to complete
the construction of both the full-scale and subscale rockets.
7.2.1 Full Scale

Table 11: Cost Breakdown for construction of Fullscale Rocket
Item
Price
6" Nosecone
8" Airframe phenolic (48in length)
Coupler Tubes
Hardware (bulkplates, centering rings, etc)
Airbrake parachute
Main parachute
Composite materials
Assembly supplies (epoxy)
Kevlar shock cord
Cable Cutters (2 - redundant)
Machined Aluminum Parts
Motor Casing (98 mm)
Flight Motors (2)
105
50
42
120
250
60
180
50
200
80
50
300
500
1080
TOTAL:
95
$ 3,397
7.2.2 Subscale
Table 12: Cost Breakdown for Subscale Rocket
Item
Price
3" Nosecone
3.9" Airframe phenolic (48in length)
Coupler Tubes
Hardware (bulkplate, centering ring, etc.)
Airbrake parachute
Main parachute
Composite Materials
Assembly supplies (epoxy)
Kevlar shock cord
Cable Cutters (2 - redundant)
Motor Casing (38 mm)
Test Motors (2)
19.95
20.99
18.99
38.99
67.79
22
38
40
50
40
50
60
120
TOTAL:
$ 586.71
7.2.3 Discussion
It can be seen that the total price to construct the full scale rocket is several times larger than
the cost to construct the subscale rocket. It was not within the teams budget to support the
construction of the full-scale. As such, the team decided to proceed with constructing the
subscale rocket.
96
7.3 PARTS PICTURES

7.3.1 Body Tubes
Rocket airframes are made from Kraft phenolic material. The team purchased two of
these to create the airframe body of the forward and aft sections. Upon delivery, the team
ensured all parts at least loosely fit within their corresponding mates.
Figure 52: Stock Phenolic Airframe Body Tube
97
Figure 53: Tight Fit Between Coupler and Airframe Tubes
7.3.2 Structural Elements

Two major structural elements exist within the construction of the rocket. These are
bulkheads and centering rings. These provide structural support for the interior of the rocket,
helping to transfer load from the motor mount tube to the exterior airframe. Centering rings do
so by providing an interface from smaller tubes (i.e. motor mount tube) to the larger airframe
tube that surrounds it. The bulkhead plates provide a closure for tube sections that are desired
to remain secluded from each other. These are used at either end of the avionics bay openings
to keep the flight computers separated from the blast generated by the ejection charges.
98
Figure 54: G10 Fiberglass Centering Ring
Figure 55: G10 Fiberglass Bulkhead
99
Finally, an Aeropack Minimum Diameter Retainer was purchased for the purpose of retaining
the motor in place without the use of a thrust plate or rear retainer. The forward portion
remains adhered to the motor mount tube. The rear section threads into the top of the motor
and is inserted into the motor mount tube until it is also threaded onto the forward section of
the retainer.
Figure 56: Minimum Diameter Motor Retainer
7.3.3 Miscellaneous Support Materials

Other parts that were ordered to support the construction and testing of the rocket
include electric matches and shear pins. Electric matches are used to detonate small charges of
100
black powder. This, in turn, is useful for deploying parachutes from the rocket bays mid-flight
(or in ejection tests on the ground before ever flying).
Shear pins are crucial to the flight of the rocket as it holds the rocket together until the
time is right to separate the rocket. Shear pins firmly connect two separate sections of the
rocket, while also ensuring that they are able to be broken in shear when the coupler tube
pushes against it. For connection points that are permanent (i.e. not being separated during
flight), thicker threaded pins are used.
Figure 57: Electric Match
101
Figure 58: Shear Pin and Permanent Screw
7.4 FIBERGLASS HAND LAYUP

In order to increase the overall strength of the phenolic airframe in order to withstand
the high loads expected during the boost phase of flight, a fiberglass hand layup was
commissioned by the team. The team followed the procedure below for doing the hand layup
of the airframe:
102
1 Support airframe tube on rod and stands. Pull fiberglass sleeve over the tube and place
zip tie on one end of the rod holding the extra fiber down.
Figure 59: Fiberglass Layup Setup
2 Apply epoxy resin and quickly pull heat shrink tube over the tube. With a hand-held heat
gun, squeeze the heat shrink tube in the direction opposite the zip tie to ensure all excess
epoxy resin is removed from the tube.
103
Figure 60: Heat Shrinking Rocket
3 Once the tube has been properly sealed, the tube must be hanged to dry in a warm
environment (to rush the curing process). After the resin has cured, the team removed the
heat shrink tubing, revealing the finished tube.
104
Figure 61: Fiberglass Hand Layup hanging to dry
7.5 ASSEMBLY
The first section of the rocket to be constructed was the motor mount tube assembly.
This part needed to consider the space in the aft section to house the airbrake parachute. Also,
two centering rings provide the strength for the force of the motor to travel through to the
airframe wall. Additionally, the two centering rings ensure the motor is properly aligned with
the central axis of the airframe. Holes were drilled radially around the centering rings to allow
for the expanding gases from the black powder charges to travel to the rear of the rocket and
push out the airbrake parachute. Eyebolts were added to the bottom centering ring to provide
a mounting structure for the shock cords of the airbrake parachute. Epoxy fillets were placed in
the interface of the motor mount tube and centering rings to stiffen the assembly even further.
105
Figure 62: Motor Mount Tube Assembly
The Motor Mount Tube assembly was then inserted into the 4 airframe tube so that
the aft ends of both tubes sat on the same plane.
The Avionics Bay was then built using the two 3 and 4 coupler tubes. These were
connected using a birch plywood centering ring. A 4 airframe tube with a length of 1 then
joined the group and provided cover. The two ends of the avionics bay were closed off using
G10 bulkheads. Small thread-all bolts (#8-32) were then inserted in to the avionics bay to
provide tensile strength to the rocket. This is needed as both ends of the avionics bay will
experience high intensity tensile loads due to the ejection and deployment of parachutes. An
external key switch was installed on the airframe tube provides the user easy access to the
flight computer without having to disassemble the rocket.
106
The actual electronics on board were pretty simple: an altimeter and a battery to supply
it. The flight computer has a dedicated onboard switch that also allows the user to utilize the
board while disconnected from onboard electronics. This proved useful when working with the
Telemega flight computer as there was no need to have to lug the rocket around; simply just
connect to the Telemega. The wires extending from the actual G10 avionics sled are wire
extensions to those running from the Telemega. These MOLEX connectors then firmly secured
connections during launch. A battery is located on the back side of the avionics sled that
powered the flight computer. Wire terminals for battery for black powder charges were added
to the top and bottom bulkheads.
Figure 63: Front view of Avionics Bay Altus Telemega
107
Figure 64: Back View of Avionics Bay Battery
The parachute bay and payload bays were all then cut to size from the 3 and 4
airframe tubes, respectively. A 6 coupler segment was then added to the payload bay (where a
bulkhead was then added to separate the payload bay from the parachute bay.
The fins were adhered with epoxy resin at the butt joint. This called for stronger support
of the base fin. As such, in an effort to stiffen the fins themselves, a 0.75-inch radius fillet was
applied. These contained some wood flour to help to thicken the resin, providing greater
consistency and strength.
108
A completed view of the rocket is shown below.
Figure 65: Subscale Rocket Fully Built
109
8 TESTING AND EVALUATION

8.1 PARACHUTE EJECTION TESTS
Parachute ejection tests are used to qualify parachute packing scheme, electronics wiring,
and black powder quantity, for use in flight. This test is especially important for this rocket
because of the unique and unproven parachute deployment scheme on the ATS.
8.1.1 Procedure
The test begins with the rocket positioned horizontally on the ground, propped up by a
support. This is to give the section to be ejected off clearance above the ground to do so. The
electronics are then armed and the area is cleared. The Altus Telemega, the onboard flight
computer, allows for remote firing via radio signals. A successful test results in an energetic
separation of the rocket, complete parachute ejection, and no damage caused.
The recovery scheme of the rocket calls for three black powder charges within the
rocket: two parachutes to be deployed and one cable cutter mechanism.
110
Figure 66: Telemega Remote Firing Screen
Figure 66 displays the user interface displayed by the Telemega flight computer for the
remote detonation of the deployment charges. For every pyro channel, the computer checks
for continuity through the electric match. The current figure displays Open messages
signifying there is no continuity. A Ready configuration sends the message that the rocket is
prepped for ejection.
8.1.2 Black Powder Charge Sizing

The minimum amount of black powder to fully separate the rocket and eject the
parachute is governed by the ideal gas law. As the black powder detonates, it is converted from
a solid to a gas. Thus, the combustion temperature of black powder is used in the calculation.
The ideal gas law, converted to calculate mass of black powder needed, is shown below:
111
Where:
m = mass of blackpowder (grams)
P = ejection pressure (12 lbf/in^2)
V = volume of tube where gas will expand (in^3)
R = black powder gas constant (22.16 ft.*lbf/lbm/R)
T = black powder combustion temperature (3307 R)
The airbrake compartment has a diameter of 3.9 inches and is 29 inches long. As such, it
has a volume of 346.4 in3. Similarly, the main parachute bay compartment has a diameter of 3
inches and is 21 inches long. The total volume of the main parachute bay is 148.4 in 3.
Knowing these parameters, the required black powder charge sizes were calculated as:
2.5 grams for the aibrake deployment and 1 gram for the main parachute. The manufacturers
of the cable cutter mechanism dictate that a 0.1-gram charge be used.
112
Figure 67: Cable Cutter Wrapped Around Main Parachute
8.1.3 Results
Shown in the figures below, the rocket was propped on a chair at its center of gravity to
ensure the rocket was well-balanced. As shown in Figure 69, the 2.5-gram charge for the
airbrake proved to provide a vigorous deployment. The donut piston, covering the aft end of
the rocket, was shown to be propelled far away from the rocket until the cord it was attached
to was stretched taught. This is favorable since the piston would need to be as far away as
possible from the airbrake parachute during flight to ensure the piston does not interfere with
the airbrake unfurling. Additionally, the vigorous deployment of the airbrake aids the airbrake
parachute in opening fully. The airbrake parachute can be seen to already be fully deployed due
to the forceful ejection alone. This is favorable during flight since it reduces the amount of
113
transient time (between black powder detonation and full airbrake deployment), decreasing
the amount of error as a result.
Figure 68: Ejection Test Setup
Figure 69: Rear Ejection of Airbrake
114
The ejection of the main parachute, using a 1-gram charge, proved to be less vigorous and did
not fully eject the parachute. Although the forward section of the parachute was able to fully
separate, it is desired for the parachute itself to also be ejected out of the bay. As such, the
desired ejection pressure was raised from 12 psi to 20 psi. Running the ideal gas equation, this
returned a suggested black powder charge of 2 grams. The test was run again for the main
parachute bay and returned a favorable ejection of the parachute.
Figure 70: Deployment of Main Parachute
8.2 FLIGHT TEST

Having verified that the flight computer works at ejecting the parachutes satisfactorily,
the rocket was ready to be tested in flight. Several flights are planned to completely validate
the design and construction of the rocket. For one, a control is necessary to validate the
115
simulation results for altitude given by Rocksim. Then, at least one successful test of the
airbrake parachute is desired, where it is shown that the airbrake parachute was actively
responsible for stopping the rocket at the target apogee.
Figure 71: Rocket Sitting On Pad
116
8.2.1 Procedure
To set up for launch, the following is the procedure:
1 Wrap Airbrake parachute into aft bay. Seal with piston donut and add shear pins to
prevent it from falling off.
2 Connect black powder charge to the lower section of the avionics bay and place avionics
bay within 4 airframe tube.
3 Add permanent pins on the lower section to prevent it from doming apart.
4 Similarly, connect black powder charge to the upper section of the avionics bay. Wrap
main parachute in protector and coil the cable cutter around it all. Place parachute into
airframe tube.
5 Place upper airframe tube into avionics bay coupler. Add permanent pins.
6 Connect payload bay to parachute bay. Place shear pins.
7 Load mass into the payload weight.
8 Connect nosecone with payload bay. Place permanent pin.
9 Place on Launchpad and remove key to activate onboard electronics.
8.2.2 Results
The team was able to conduct one flight the control to validate the simulation results.
Unfortunately, an error occurred on descent of this flight that caused irreparable damage to the
rocket airframe. With this in mind, the data presented ahead reflects the control flight flown.
More information will be covered on the nature of the failure at a later section of this report.
The following pictures show the launch sequentially as it happened on ascent.
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
As can be seen from the flight itself, the rocket seemed to have taken a sharp turn
shortly after leaving the launch rail. This would suggest that the rocket itself had a stability
margin that was slightly over stable. This is because the wind caused the rocket to
weathercock, meaning orient itself in the direction of the oncoming wind. Another possibility,
more probable, is that the rocket had not attained a high enough velocity to become stable at
all at that point and wanted to veer off the flight path. However, it quickly gained speed during
the motor burn and then the rocket achieved a straight flight (at an angle).
Figure 72: Flight Data
126
Figure 73: Flight Statistics
The flight data recorded by the Altus Telemega shows a maximum altitude of 2303 ft.
The Rocksim simulations, where wind speed was shown to have a minimal effect, predicted an
apogee altitude of 2600 ft. Though not an exact match, the simulation proved to be close to the
actual attained apogee altitude. The accuracy of the results can be attributed to good
workmanship and the teams expertise building rockets as the predicted weight estimates of
the rocket in Rocksim were relatively close to the actual weight of the subscale rocket. The
difference in the altitude predicted and the one attained can be directly attributed to the angle
127
in which the rocket ultimately flew in. By not having a perfectly vertical flight, there was a
horizontal component of velocity that robbed the vertical component from achieving its true
altitude. Another flight would be suggested where no angle of attack is achieved in order to
truly verify the simulation results.
Figure 74: Map View of the Rocket's Flight Trajectory
128
8.2.3 Failure Analysis

The rocket did not fail on ascent. In fact, the launch itself was nominal and validated the
simulation apogee results. The failure came about during the descent portion of the flight. The
team wanted to separate the rocket at apogee as designed and then deploy airbrake on
descent to act as a drogue parachute. Everything deployed in a timely manner (airbrake worked
perfectly in flight). However, the main never deployed and didnt slow down the rocket for a
soft landing. Analyzing the landing site of the rocket, it would seem that the main cause for this
failure was an excessive use of shock cord lines throughout the rocket. The reason for this
conclusion is that the piston donut was tangled with the shock cord lines of the main
parachute. It seems as if the piston donut pulled on these ropes and tugged the wires supplying
power to the cable cutter off from the terminal; thus preventing the cable cutter from freeing
the main parachute.
The damage suffered by the airframe of the rocket was not extensive, but it was not
able to fly immediately thereafter. The rocket landed on a tree and the tangled lines got caught
on one of the branches. The now-in-tension Kevlar shock cord applied a point load to the
fiberglass airframe and sliced through it, creating a 5-inch long gash. The repair work needed
is minimal and the rocket would fly again. It is the teams desire to finish testing and be able to
validate the airbrakes performance on ascent.
129
9 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
9.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY
9.1.1 Safety and Mission Assurance of the Vehicle
Table 13: Causes, Consequences, and Mitigation of Failure Modes
Potential Failure Mode
Parachute Failure
Cause
Parachute burns
from ejection
charge
Parachute detaches
from the shock
cord
Igniter fails to
ignite
Launch Failure
Motor explodes
Leads break free

Altimeter Failure
External Structural
Failure
Consequence
Improper installation
of the Kevlar blanket
Vehicle experiences
an uncontrolled
descent leading to
potentially
catastrophic failure
Motor will not
combust; rocket will
not launch
Rocket will not
launch; catastrophic
damage to the vehicle
compromising its
safety
Signals are not sent to
ejection charges;
uncontrolled descent
of the vehicle
Altimeter runs out

of battery
Ejection charges do
not activate;
of the vehicle
Rail guide
separates while on
the launch rail
Rocket has an
unpredictable
trajectory
Fins break off or

detach from the
surface of the
Rocket becomes
unstable during flight
130
Mitigation
Ensure that blanket
completely wraps around
the parachute
Securely tie the
parachutes to the shock
cords; multiple people
will check for strength
Ensure continuity;
properly store igniters
before use
Ensure proper handling
and storage of the motor
Install thicker gage wire

Fresh batteries must be
used in the altimeter
before each launch to
ensure they are fully
charged
Proper installation,
alignment, and location
of rail buttons must be
ensured
Use proper materials,
proper orientation of the
fins, and proper fillet
airframe during
flight
Internal Structural
Failure
Ejection Charge Failure
technique
Electronics bay
detaches in flight
Damage to
electronics and rocket
is unstable during
flight
Internal
components shift
during initial thrust
Rockets center of
gravity shifts,
resulting in an
unstable flight
Body tube
connections are weak
Couplers fail from
potentially resulting
being too short
in rocket breaking
apart during liftoff
Coupler breaks upon
parachute
deployment causing
the parachute to
Coupler tube is
separate from the
very brittle
rocket. Uncontrolled
descent and rocket
increases in speed
rather than slowing
down
Motor flies through
the rocket and
Motor mount fails damages components
and flight becomes
unstable
Pressure increase is
not sufficient to eject
Ejection charges fail
airframe components;
to ignite
of vehicle
Potential damage to
Ejection charge is
the internal and
too large
external components
of the vehicle
131
Construction of the
electronics bay will
ensure a smooth contour
and will be firmly
attached
Apply enough epoxy to
secure internal
components. Also use
removable rivets to
secure sections that are
detachable
Ensure couplers are at
least one tube diameter
in length to ensure that
the rocket is held
together
Reinforce the internal

coupler walls with epoxy
to match the strength
required to sustain the
high loads present upon
parachute deployment
Forward motor mound

bulkhead must be made
thick enough
Ground ejection test
Ground ejection test
Premature
separation of
rocket components
Separation Failure
Lack of separation
of rocket
components
Damage to rocket due

to unforeseen forces
acting on the vehicle
Rocket descends
ballistic, posing a
safety threat to life
and property
Ensure connections are

strong and fastened
Ground ejection test to
ensure proper
component separation
9.1.2 Personnel Health and Safety

Table 14: Hazard Sources and Mitigations
Source of Hazard
Hazard
Black Powder
Explosive if contained
improperly
Motor Handling
Unexpected Combustion
Igniter Handling
Burns if Ignited
Fiberglass
Eye and skin irritant and

inhalation hazard
Belt Sander
Particles may be dispersed

into the air, may enter
personnels eyes or
respiratory system
Epoxy
Toxic fumes and skin irritant
132
Mitigation
Ensure proper storage. Keep
away from sparks, heat, and
open flames. Arm altimeter
ONLY WHEN READY TO
LAUNCH.
Proper storage is necessary.
Keep away from sparks, heat,
and open flames. DO NOT
install igniter until on launch
pad.
Keep away from static charge,
extreme temperatures, and
open flames.
Utilize ventilation masks, long
sleeves, and latex gloves while
sanding. Sand in a wellventilated area.
Utilize protective eyewear
and ventilation masks. DO
NOT wear gloves or long
sleeves for they may get
caught. Sand in wellventilated areas.
Utilize ventilation masks and
latex gloves. Use in wellventilated area.
9.2 ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY

The rocket breaks apart into 5 major sections, the motor, the lower body, the electronics
bay, the payload bay, and the nose cone. Starting from a disassembled state the first step is to
place the desired payload into the payload bay. The nosecone is then inserted into the top of
the payload bay and secured with a pin.
The next step is to load the charges. Making sure the flight computer is disarmed, the
charge containers are filled and the electric matches are inserted into the containers and
sealed. The wires are then connected to the block terminals. In the case of the cable cutter
device the black powder is inserted into the piston assembly. Next, the parachute is folded and
wrapped within a Kevlar blast protector. The blast protector is secured with a nylon zip type
which also threads through the cable cutter.
The next step is to assemble the remaining rocket parts. The parachute bay is placed on
the top of the avionics bay and secured with 3 removable rivets. The parachute is then stuffed
in the parachute bay and the remaining shock cord line is coiled up on top of it. The payload
bay/ nose cone is then placed on top of the parachute bay and secured with nylon shear pins.
The lower airframe is then connected to the lower avionics bay and secured with removable
rivets.
It is now time to start preparing the motor. The first step is to remove the black powder
delayed ejection charge from the motor. This charge functions as a parachute deployment
charge on rockets that dont have electronics. Since this rocket does it is removed. Next an
adapter for the minimum diameter retainer is threaded into the empty charge cup. The adapter
133
has self-tapping threads and the cup is made from plastic. Once on, the motor is inserted into
its casing and the casing is inserted into the motor mount of the rocket. To secure the motor to
the rocket it is turned so that the adapter screws into the minimum diameter retainer. Once it
is snug, the motor preparation assembly is complete.
The rocket is then carried to the pad where the igniter is inserted and flight computer is
enabled. The computer will then produce a series of beep codes indicating its status as ready
for flight or not. At this point a ground station can be configured to listen in via radio signals to
the rockets telemetry data. The 5 second countdown is given and the rocket is launched.
Upon recovery the rocket is disassembled in the reverse order of assembly. It is important
to keep an eye out for any damage to the rocket or other components. Some commonly
damaged components are the air frame tubes, the shock cords, and the motor casing. If
everything is fine, it can be reassembled with new charges and electric matches and flown
again.
9.3 MANUFACTURABILITY
It is crucial to maintain high standards of workmanship when building and assembling all
the parts and structures as well as electronics that go into the launch vehicle. In order to ensure
that the vehicle behaves as planned and ultimately have a successful mission launch, it is
imperative that all construction and communication electronics be dealt with great care and
attention. Considering that very strong forces are at work on the vehicle during flight, low
134
quality workmanship can lead to failure of the vehicle in many different ways. For instance, the
exterior of the rocket when protective fiber glass coating is being applied, great caution for
both health and time must be taken to ensure a smooth surface roughness and topography.
Otherwise, flight is altered and vehicle may not follow the simulated path making it extremely
unsafe for spectators and operators. Also, sensitive instruments within the rocket need proper
protection in order to continue communication between radio and remote control as well as
proper function of the rest of the electronic instruments and batteries. Careful mounting and
protection from the ejection charges meant to eject the parachutes will prevent a break at
take-off, the ignition of black powder charges, or blast. Malfunctioning of either of the flight
computers may cause the main parachute not to deploy resulting in a crash landing which
jeopardizes the integrity of the air frame which may or may not be reusable for another launch.
In addition, the GPS unit, if damaged, may potentially make the rocket unrecoverable if it lands
too far from the launch pad. Finally, if structures built within the rocket come loose during the
flight, they could potentially tear up the internals of the rocket and tangle up the parachutes
resulting in a rocket crash land and fail in both cases.
9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY

Many environmental factors can affect the integrity of the launch vehicle. First and
foremost, wind speeds directly impact its flight when taking off on the launch rail. If the vehicle
has not attained an appropriate velocity such that it is stable, winds could weathercock the
vehicle and cause it to fly into the direction of the incoming wind. This could pose a threat to
the crowd below if a severe degree of inclination is attained as a result of the wind. Upon
135
descent, if wind speeds prove great enough, the rocket could drift far beyond the confines of
the launch range, landing on property not protected or restricted and reserved by the NAR club
launches. For instance, landing on powerlines would warrant having to call and contract FPL to
come and bring down the vehicle. In addition to the wind, the range must be clear of any
weather events -namely precipitation. This is to ensure that none of the onboard electronics
are harmed as a result of precipitation. Serious measures must be taken so that the vehicle has
minimal impact to the environment. One measure that will be taken will be to not use any
motors that expel titanium sponges. This will be done so as to minimize the probability of fire
starting on the ground beneath the launch pad upon motor ignition. The pad will be verified to
not have any wildlife in the surrounding area so as to ensure there is no danger to life due to
the vehicles motor ignition.
136
9.5 RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 15: Risk Assessment of Hazards and Failures
Potential Hazards and Failures
Risk Level
Parachute burns from exposure to ejection

charge due to improper installation of Kevlar
blanket and wadding
Improbable
Altitude Targeting System and or Recovery

System fail to deploy causing sections to remain
unseparated, resulting in launch vehicle being
susceptible to structural damage due to kinetic
energy upon impact as well the endangerment to
spectators and property
Occasional
Parachute detaches from shock cord resulting in

an uncontrolled descent
Occasional
Removable Pins/Rivet Fails
Improbable
Altimeters and GPS units fail to function causing

uncontrolled descent of the vehicle due to signal
failure in communicating with the ejection
charges
Occasional
Wires or shock cords getting tangled and making

the entire recovery system fail
Occasional
137
Verification/Mitigation
During preparation, it will be
ensured that a Kevlar blanket
completely wraps around the
parachute making the risk
highly improbable
Appropriate and sufficient
ground ejection tests have
been done to verify all launch
procedures and events during
flight go as planned
Parachute must be securely
tied to the shock cords using
the Water Knot, Figure-8 Knot
and Stopper Knots when
appropriate
No pin or rivet has a high
amount of load placed upon
it. The Kevlar shock cord will
retain the airframe in the
event of the removable pin
failure.
Batteries will be checked and
replaced after each launch to
ensure full charge.
Communication between the
Altus and the Telemega and
Teledongle will be verified
before launch
Wires and shock cords must
be secured with much
caution. Whenever possible,
add a rubber band to keep
long cords and wires from
interfering with the recovery
system
10 DESIGN EXPERIENCE
10.1 OVERVIEW
The Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition team was actually formed in May
2014 with the intention of establishing FIUs first Rocketry club. To gain some experience and
dab into the thrills of competing in the most ambitious rocketry competition at the time, the
team decided to enter and compete in the NASA Student Launch 2014-2015 competition. With
just three members, our goal was simply to fulfil all the competition requirements with the
highest quality workmanship possible while still learning about the aerospace industry and how
much detailed effort is put into design, construction, reviews, and most importantly, safety. Not
only did we have that experience under our belt coming into the IREC competition and senior
design project, but we believe we made outstanding connections that allowed us to assemble a
panel of experts along the way.
10.2 STANDARDS USED IN THE PROJECT
NAR High Power Safety Code
National Fire Protection Association Code for High Power Rocketry (NFPA 1127)
Federal Aviation Administration Code of Federal Regulations Part 101 Subpart C
ATF Federal Explosives Law and Regulations Part 555
ANSI B11.0 Machinery Safety Standards
ASME - Code of Ethics of Engineers

138
10.3 IMPACT OF DESIGN IN A GLOBAL AND SOCIETAL CONTEXT

The teams involvement in the Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition (IREC)
serves to represent Florida International University outside of the typical classroom experience.
More so, the competition is held in Utah, where the school likely does not have any presence at
all. The involvement of the students in this competition will garner prestige and recognition for
the school.
10.4 LIFE-LONG LEARNING AND DESIGN EXPERIENCE

The overall experience of the team was that projects like the NASA Student Launch
Competition, the IREC Competition and Senior Design Projects such as this one teach students
about what it takes in order to build high powered, reliable rockets and the type of work
involved in current industry. With that in mind, we made sure to become members and learn
through the construction of personal rocket kits the safety standards impressed by the National
Association of Rocketry. All three team members were able to earn their NAR Level One High
Power Rocketry Certifications. Although we had a rough start we feel we progressed greatly
and the experience gained along the way was invaluable. Apart from seeing first-hand what it
takes to design, construct, and fly a high powered rocket, we were able to see and experience
some of the day-to-day rocket engineering work environment on a tour to the NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
139
10.5 DESIGN CHALLENGES

While the team initially attempted to raise the standards of rocketry innovation, the
features and additional constraints on the launch vehicle caused the team to refocus on the
features that they believed to be valuable to either points for the IREC competition and safety.
These changes in design can be seen in section three, Design Alternatives.
Some challenges that the team encountered involved the use of the Altus Telemega for
remote communication which proved to be a feat in itself. New technology always take a little
bit of getting used to but once the team was comfortable with all the additional programs and
software, adapting it to the rocket was a cinch. This proves that life-long learning is truly
lifelong.
Once on the launch field, a few minor complications were experienced. We figured out the
hard way that the orientation of the antenna of the Altus actually mattered in the sense that it
needed to be identified in the program else it would not lock on the parameters set. In
addition, the Rocksim simulation had to be adjusted slightly due to an incorrect estimation of
the center of gravity. Weight was added to off-set the discrepancy and the final center of
gravity was measured to be 49 inches from the tip of the nosecone. The additional weight was
added to the nosecone in the form of .177 BB pellets. Once Rocksim was run again with the
new weight parameters, the stability margin was raised to acceptable limits.
We believe that the biggest challenge the team experienced was staying within the
constraints of budget and time. The team encountered many difficulties with the availability of
funds. While the Florida Space Grant Consortium granted the team $2000.00, accessing and
140
using the funds proved more difficult than the team would have ever anticipated. The project is
complete and the funds have yet to be processed. It was a tough but good lesson to learn how
one will always be required to go through lengthy bureaucratic proceedings before any funds
are made available.
11 CONCLUSION
11.1 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Designing a rocket is no easy task. In the aerospace field, one must be willing to take
great risks in order to be successful. For it is not possible to see your aircraft fly until it is up in
the air, and its not possible to see it fail until it is too late. Though the team was unable to test
the rocket in its entirety, more than enough design was validated in that one flight test to
warrant a success. For the purpose of this project, the main scope was the ascent portion of the
launch and, in that, the rocket performed exceptionally. It is understood that additional efforts
must now be made to repair the rocket in order to fly again.
For the team, the experience of flying this subscale rocket has provided greater
knowledge and technical expertise in designing their own sounding rockets. With this
knowledge, it has served as a launching point for embarking on the construction of the more
ambitious full scale rocket.
141
11.2 EVALUATION OF INTEGRATED GLOBAL DESIGN ASPECTS

The primary use for rockets is to gain a greater understanding of the world around us
and beyond. From launching scientific experiments to launching humans, the goal is the same.
This project directly promotes the advancement of rocket engineering and in turn the science
and technology behind it. Some of the most advanced technology has been created as a
byproduct of space exploration. Due to the extremely harsh nature of space, and a severe lack
of resources, technology is pushed to its limits and ultimately great advancements are made in
energy conservation, sustainability, and collective human knowledge. These advancements are
a benefit to the entire world and there is no better example of global learning. Without the
satellites in space, variances in weather patterns attributed to global warming could not be
analyzed. Without human space exploration hundreds of technologies would not exist today.
To grasp the bigger picture in essence of global learning and rocketry is the window to the
biggest picture we can imagine.
11.3 EVALUATION OF INTANGIBLE EXPERIENCES

Being involved in a project of this magnitude allowed all team members to gain
knowledge far beyond what the classroom offers. The team members were able to learn about
new subjects that ranged from fin flutter to environmental considerations for altitude launches.
Primarily, this project served to instruct members on the research process to implement new
knowledge to a project.
142
Additionally, given the large magnitude of this project, the team needed to implement
smart integration processes to ensure that the final product matched initial concepts. This was
a goal ultimately achieved by the successful construction of the high powered rocket as well as
the successful test flight. Thus, the team highly values the skills obtained as a result of this
project.
11.4 FUTURE WORK

The team recognizes that additional testing of the subscale rocket is needed before
even attempting to construct the full-scale rocket. Several flight tests of the airbrake system
must be conducted on ascent to verify the code is working nominally. Additionally, fixing the
shock cord length problem is integral to preventing another failure similar to the one
experienced by the team.
Once all testing of the subscale rocket is completed, additional extensive analysis should
be conducted on the full scale rocket. Furthermore, experience in handling large high power
motors should be obtained before attempting to conduct a launch of that magnitude.
143
12 REFERENCES
1. Diaz, Michael. "Sergei P. Korolev, USSR, Inducted in 1976, The Chief Designer of the
Soviet Space Program." The New Mexico Museum of Space History, a Division of the New
Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2015,.
<http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloffame/detail.php?id=15>
2. Benson, Tom. "Brief History of Rockets." National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, 12 June 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2015. <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k12/TRC/Rockets/history_of_rockets.html>.
3. Diaz, Michael. "Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky, USSR, Inducted in 1976, The Father of
Astronautics and Rocket Dynamics." The New Mexico Museum of Space History, a
Division of the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloffame/detail.php?id=27>.
4. Dunbar, Brian. "What Is a Sounding Rocket?" National Aeronautics and Space
Administration,
12
Apr.
2004.
Web.
18
Apr.
2015.
<http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/f_sounding.html>.
5. "Rules." Experimental Sounding Rocket Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.soundingrocket.org/rules.html>.
6. Milligan, Tim V. "Selecting Rocket Motors for Your Models: Part 3." Apogee Peak of
Flight Newsletter Issue 40 (n.d.): 1. Apogee Rockets. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
<https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter40.pdf>.
7. Barrowman, James S., and Judith A. Barrowman. "The Theoretical Prediction of the
Center of Pressure." Barrowman Report. ApogeeRockets, 18 Aug. 1966. Web. 18 Oct.
2015. <https://www.apogeerockets.com/downloads/PDFs/barrowman_report.pdf>.
8. Barrowman, James S. The Practical Calculation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of

Slender Finned Vehicles. Thesis. The Catholic University of America, 1967. Washington,
DC: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, n.d.
9. Ernesto, and Kapust. "Stability - Chapter 5." Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - Education
for Working Professionals - Rensselaer Hartford Campus. Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute.
Web.
23
Sept.
2015.
<http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/kapust/EP/Other/References Rocket/Jon Champion docs from JMRC/Stability.pdf>.
144
10. Culp, Randy. "Rocket Equations." Rocket Equations. RocketMime, 14 Jan. 2012. Web. 23
Sept. 2015. <http://www.rocketmime.com/rockets/rckt_eqn.html#Method>.
11. Box, Simon, Christopher M. Bishop, and Hugh Hunt. "Estimating the Dynamic and
Aerodynamic Parameters of Passively Controlled High Power Rockets for Flight
Simulation." Aerodynamic Coefficients. CambridgeRocket.Sourceforge.net, 1 Feb. 2009.
Web.
23
Sept.
2015.
<http://cambridgerocket.sourceforge.net/AerodynamicCoefficients.pdf>.
12. Barrowman, Jim. "Technical Information Report 30 - Stability of a Model Rocket in
Flight." Stability of a Model Rocket in Flight. Centuri Engineering Company, 1970. Web.
23 Sept. 2015. <http://www.rockets4schools.org/images/Rocket.Stability.Flight.pdf>.
13. HyperPhysics. "Force and Momentum." Rocket Principles. Physics and Astronomy Georgia State University. Web. 23 Sept. 2015. <http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html>.
14. "WeatherSpark Beta." Average Weather For Moab, Utah, USA. Cedar Lake Ventures,
Inc. Web. 23 Nov. 2015. <https://weatherspark.com/averages/29941/Moab-Utah-UnitedStates>.
15. Benson, Tom. "Rocket Aerodynamic Forces." Rocket Aerodynamic Forces. Glenn
Research Center - NASA, 12 June 2014. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
<https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/rktaero.html>.
16. Benson, Tom. "Center of Pressure." Center of Pressure. Glenn Research Center - NASA,
12
June
2014.
Web.
23
Nov.
2015.
<https://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/cp.html>.
145
13 APPENDIX
13.1 STANDARDS AND CODES
13.1.1 NAR High Power Safety Code
1. Certification. I will only fly high power rockets or possess high power rocket motors that
are within the scope of my user certification and required licensing.
2. Materials. I will use only lightweight materials such as paper, wood, rubber, plastic,
fiberglass, or when necessary ductile metal, for the construction of my rocket.
3. Motors. I will use only certified, commercially made rocket motors, and will not tamper
with these motors or use them for any purposes except those recommended by the
manufacturer. I will not allow smoking, open flames, nor heat sources within 25 feet of
these motors.
4. Ignition System. I will launch my rockets with an electrical launch system, and with
electrical motor igniters that are installed in the motor only after my rocket is at the launch
pad or in a designated prepping area. My launch system will have a safety interlock that is
in series with the launch switch that is not installed until my rocket is ready for launch, and
will use a launch switch that returns to the off position when released. The function of
onboard energetics and firing circuits will be inhibited except when my rocket is in the
launching position.
5. Misfires. If my rocket does not launch when I press the button of my electrical launch
system, I will remove the launchers safety interlock or disconnect its battery, and will wait
60 seconds after the last launch attempt before allowing anyone to approach the rocket.
6. Launch Safety. I will use a 5-second countdown before launch. I will ensure that a means is
available to warn participants and spectators in the event of a problem. I will ensure that
no person is closer to the launch pad than allowed by the accompanying Minimum
Distance Table. When arming onboard energetics and firing circuits I will ensure that no
person is at the pad except safety personnel and those required for arming and disarming
operations. I will check the stability of my rocket before flight and will not fly it if it cannot
be determined to be stable. When conducting a simultaneous launch of more than one
high power rocket I will observe the additional requirements of NFPA 1127.
7. Launcher. I will launch my rocket from a stable device that provides rigid guidance until the
rocket has attained a speed that ensures a stable flight, and that is pointed to within 20
146
degrees of vertical. If the wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour I will use a launcher length
that permits the rocket to attain a safe velocity before separation from the launcher. I will
use a blast deflector to prevent the motors exhaust from hitting the ground. I will ensure
that dry grass is cleared around each launch pad in accordance with the accompanying
Minimum Distance table, and will increase this distance by a factor of 1.5 and clear that
area of all combustible material if the rocket motor being launched uses titanium sponge in
the propellant.
8. Size. My rocket will not contain any combination of motors that total more than 40,960 Nsec (9208 pound-seconds) of total impulse. My rocket will not weigh more at liftoff than
one-third of the certified average thrust of the high power rocket motor(s) intended to be
ignited at launch.
9. Flight Safety. I will not launch my rocket at targets, into clouds, near airplanes, nor on
trajectories that take it directly over the heads of spectators or beyond the boundaries of
the launch site, and will not put any flammable or explosive payload in my rocket. I will not
launch my rockets if wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour. I will comply with Federal
Aviation Administration airspace regulations when flying, and will ensure that my rocket
will not exceed any applicable altitude limit in effect at that launch site.
a. Launch Site. I will launch my rocket outdoors, in an open area where trees, power lines,
occupied buildings, and persons not involved in the launch do not present a hazard, and
that is at least as large on its smallest dimension as one-half of the maximum altitude to
which rockets are allowed to be flown at that site or 1500 feet, whichever is greater, or
1000 feet for rockets with a combined total impulse of less than 160 N-sec, a total liftoff
weight of less than 1500 grams, and a maximum expected altitude of less than 610 meters
(2000 feet).
b. Launcher Location. My launcher will be 1500 feet from any occupied building or from any
public highway on which traffic flow exceeds 10 vehicles per hour, not including traffic flow
related to the launch. It will also be no closer than the appropriate Minimum Personnel
Distance from the accompanying table from any boundary of the launch site.
c. Recovery System. I will use a recovery system such as a parachute in my rocket so that all
parts of my rocket return safely and undamaged and can be flown again, and I will use only
flame-resistant or fireproof recovery system wadding in my rocket.
i. Recovery Safety. I will not attempt to recover my rocket from power lines, tall trees, or
other dangerous places, fly it under conditions where it is likely to recover in spectator
areas or outside the launch site, nor attempt to catch it as it approaches the ground.
147
Table 16: Minimum Distance Table

Installed
Minimum Personnel
Distance
(Newton-Seconds)
Equivalent
High Power
Motor Type
Minimum
Diameter of
Cleared Area (ft.)
Minimum
Personnel
Distance (ft.)
(Complex Rocket) (ft.)
0 320.00
H or smaller
50
100
200
320.01 640.00
50
100
200
640.01 1,280.00
50
100
200
1,280.01 2,560.00
75
200
300
2,560.01 5,120.00
100
300
500
5,120.01 10,240.00
125
500
1000
10,240.01 20,480.00
125
1000
1500
20,480.01 40,960.00
125
1500
2000
Total Impulse
Note: A Complex rocket is one that is multi-staged or that is propelled by two or more
rocket motors.
<http://www.nar.org/safety-information/high-power-rocket-safety-code/>
148
13.1.2 National Fire Protection Association Code for High Powered Rocketry
Due to restricted access to this code, the complete document including chapter 2 of the
NFPA 1127 is found at: <http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/documentinformation-pages?mode=code&code=1127>
13.1.3 FAA Code of Federal Regulations Pt.101 Subpart C Amateur Rockets

13.1.3.1
Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to operating unmanned rockets. However, a person

operating an unmanned rocket within a restricted area must comply with
101.25(b)(7)(ii) and with any additional limitations imposed by the using or controlling
agency.
(b) A person operating an unmanned rocket other than an amateur rocket as
defined in 1.1 of this chapter must comply with 14 CFR Chapter III.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27390, 73 FR 73781, Dec. 4, 2008]
13.1.3.2
101.22 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this subpart:
(a) Class 1Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that:
(1) Uses no more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant;
(2) Uses a slow-burning propellant;
(3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic;
(4) Contains no substantial metal parts; and
(5) Weighs no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces), including the propellant.
149
(b) Class 2High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model
rocket that is propelled by a motor or motors having a combined total impulse of 40,960
Newton-seconds (9,208 pound-seconds) or less.
(c) Class 3Advanced High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a
model rocket or high-power rocket.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27390, 73 FR 73781, Dec. 4, 2008]
13.1.3.3
101.23 General operating limitations.

(a) You must operate an amateur rocket in such a manner that it:
(1) Is launched on a suborbital trajectory;
(2) When launched, must not cross into the territory of a foreign country unless an
agreement is in place between the United States and the country of concern;
(3) Is unmanned; and
(4) Does not create a hazard to persons, property, or other aircraft.
(b) The FAA may specify additional operating limitations necessary to ensure that
air traffic is not adversely affected, and public safety is not jeopardized.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27390, 73 FR 73781, Dec. 4, 2008]
13.1.3.4
101.25 Operating limitations for Class 2-High Power Rockets and
Class 3-Advanced High Power Rockets.

When operating Class 2-High Power Rockets or Class 3-Advanced High
Power Rockets, you must comply with the General Operating Limitations of 101.23. In
addition, you must not operate Class 2-High Power Rockets or Class 3-Advanced High
Power Rockets
(a) At any altitude where clouds or obscuring phenomena of more than five-tenths
coverage prevails;
(b) At any altitude where the horizontal visibility is less than five miles;
150
(c) Into any cloud;

(d) Between sunset and sunrise without prior authorization from the FAA;
(e) Within 9.26 kilometers (5 nautical miles) of any airport boundary without prior
authorization from the FAA;
(f) In controlled airspace without prior authorization from the FAA;
(g) Unless you observe the greater of the following separation distances from any
person or property that is not associated with the operations:
(1) Not less than one-quarter the maximum expected altitude;
(2) 457 meters (1,500 ft.);
(h) Unless a person at least eighteen years old is present, is charged with ensuring
the safety of the operation, and has final approval authority for initiating high-power
rocket flight; and
(i) Unless reasonable precautions are provided to report and control a fire caused
by rocket activities.
[74 FR 38092, July 31, 2009, as amended by Amdt. 101-8, 74 FR 47435, Sept. 16, 2009]
13.1.3.5
101.27 ATC notification for all launches.
No person may operate an unmanned rocket other than a Class 1Model Rocket
unless that person gives the following information to the FAA ATC facility nearest to the
place of intended operation no less than 24 hours before and no more than three days
before beginning the operation:
(a) The name and address of the operator; except when there are multiple
participants at a single event, the name and address of the person so designated as the
event launch coordinator, whose duties include coordination of the required launch
data estimates and coordinating the launch event;
(b) Date and time the activity will begin;
(c) Radius of the affected area on the ground in nautical miles;
(d) Location of the center of the affected area in latitude and longitude
coordinates;
151
(e) Highest affected altitude;

(f) Duration of the activity;
(g) Any other pertinent information requested by the ATC facility.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27390, 73 FR 73781, Dec. 4, 2008, as amended at Doc. No. FAA2007-27390, 74 FR 31843, July 6, 2009]
13.1.3.6
101.29 Information requirements.
(a) Class 2High-Power Rockets. When a Class 2High-Power Rocket requires a

certificate of waiver or authorization, the person planning the operation must provide
the information below on each type of rocket to the FAA at least 45 days before the
proposed operation. The FAA may request additional information if necessary to ensure
the proposed operations can be safely conducted. The information shall include for each
type of Class 2 rocket expected to be flown:
(1) Estimated number of rockets,
(2) Type of propulsion (liquid or solid), fuel(s) and oxidizer(s),
(3) Description of the launcher(s) planned to be used, including any airborne
platform(s),
(4) Description of recovery system,
(5) Highest altitude, above ground level, expected to be reached,
(6) Launch site latitude, longitude, and elevation, and
(7) Any additional safety procedures that will be followed.
(b) Class 3Advanced High-Power Rockets. When a Class 3Advanced High-Power
Rocket requires a certificate of waiver or authorization the person planning the
operation must provide the information below for each type of rocket to the FAA at
least 45 days before the proposed operation. The FAA may request additional
information if necessary to ensure the proposed operations can be safely conducted.
The information shall include for each type of Class 3 rocket expected to be flown:
(1) The information requirements of paragraph (a) of this section,
(2) Maximum possible range,
152
(3) The dynamic stability characteristics for the entire flight profile,
(4) A description of all major rocket systems, including structural, pneumatic,
propellant, propulsion, ignition, electrical, avionics, recovery, wind-weighting, flight
control, and tracking,
(5) A description of other support equipment necessary for a safe operation,
(6) The planned flight profile and sequence of events,
(7) All nominal impact areas, including those for any spent motors and other
discarded hardware, within three standard deviations of the mean impact point,
(8) Launch commit criteria,
(9) Countdown procedures, and
(10) Mishap procedures.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27390, 73 FR 73781, Dec. 4, 2008, as amended at Doc. No. FAA2007-27390, 74 FR 31843, July 6, 2009]
< http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=14:2.0.1.3.15#sp14.2.101.c>
13.1.4 ATF Federal Explosives Law and Regulations Part 555

Restricted access to laws and regulations. The complete document consisting of the AFT
Federal Explosives Law and Regulations including part 555 is found at:
<https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5400-7.pdf>
13.1.5 ANSI B11.0 Machinery Safety Standards

The complete list of machinery safety standards is provided in this website:
<http://b11standards.org/standards/>
153
13.1.6 ASME Code of Ethics of Engineers

SOCIETY POLICY
ETHICS
ASME requires ethical practice by each of its members and has adopted the following
Code of Ethics of Engineers as referenced in the ASME Constitution, Article C2.1.1. CODE
OF ETHICS OF ENGINEERS
The Fundamental Principles Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and
dignity of the engineering profession by:
I.
using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare;
II.
being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity their clients
(including their employers) and the public; and
III.
striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering

profession.
The Fundamental Canons
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the
performance of their professional duties.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence; they shall
build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not
compete unfairly with others.
3. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and
shall provide opportunities for the professional and ethical development of
those engineers under their supervision.
154
4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of
conflicts of interest.
5. Engineers shall respect the proprietary information and intellectual property rights of
others, including charitable organizations and professional societies in the
engineering field.
6. Engineers shall associate only with reputable persons or organizations.
7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner and
shall avoid any conduct which brings discredit upon the profession.
8. Engineers shall consider environmental impact and sustainable development in the
performance of their professional duties.
9. Engineers shall not seek ethical sanction against another engineer unless there is
good reason to do so under the relevant codes, policies and procedures
governing that engineers ethical conduct.
10. Engineers who are members of the Society shall endeavor to abide by the
Constitution, By-Laws and Policies of the Society, and they shall disclose
knowledge of any matter involving another members alleged violation of this
Code of Ethics or the Societys Conflicts of Interest Policy in a prompt, complete
and truthful manner to the chair of the Ethics Committee.
The Ethics Committee maintains an archive of interpretations to the ASME Code of
Ethics (P-15.7). These interpretations shall serve as guidance to the user of the ASME
Code of Ethics and are available on the Committees website or upon request.
155
<https://www.asme.org/getmedia/9EB36017-FA98-477E-8A7377B04B36D410/P157_Ethics.aspx>
13.2 GROUP PHOTO

From left to right, Giancarlo Lombardi, Maryel Gonzalez, and Christopher Hayes.
156

Team20 Rocketengineeringcompetition Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Team20 Rocketengineeringcompetition Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EML 4905 Senior Design Project

Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition

Advisor: Professor Benjamin Boesl

November 23, 2015

Ethics Statement and Signatures

Dr. Benjamin Boesl

PROJECT FORMULATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

PROPOSED DESIGN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36

PROJECT MANAGEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48

Sequence of Events ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46

ENGINEERING DESIGN AND ANALYSIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95

TESTING AND EVALUATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110

Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 117

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130

DESIGN EXPERIENCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138

OVERVIEW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138

CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141

REFERENCES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 144

APPENDIX ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146

1.3 LITERATURE SURVEY

1.3.2 Theory and Governing Equations

Figure 1: Center of Gravity on a Model Rocket

individual portions. Simplification of calculations is important to avoid careless errors. Finally,

Figure 2: Diagram illustrating Barrowmans Rocket Sectioning

shapes of the nose cone, body tube or

forces in mathematical terms, the net

Figure 3: Center of Pressure vs. Center of Gravity

1.4 SURVEY OF RELATED STANDARDS

NAR High Power Safety Code

Federal Aviation Administration Code of Federal Regulations Part 101 Subpart C

ATF Federal Explosives Law and Regulations Part 555

ANSI B11.0 Machinery Safety Standards

ASME - Code of Ethics of Engineers

2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

2.3 DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

2.4 ADDRESSING GLOBAL DESIGN

A cost-effective approach to manufacture and assemble rocket, maximizing replicability

2.5 CONSTRAINTS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

3.2 AIRFRAME DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

3.2.2 Concept #1: Single Diameter with Brake Pods

Figure 4: Airframe Concept #1 - Single Diameter with Brake Pods

3.2.3 Concept #2: Single Diameter with Internal Brake

Figure 5: Airframe Concept #2 - Single Diameter with Internal Brake

3.2.4 Concept #3: Varying Body Diameter with Internal Brake

Figure 6: Airframe Concept #3 - Varying Diameter with Internal Brake

3.3 PROPULSION SYSTEM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

3.3.1 Concept #1: Solid Motor

Figure 7: Solid Motor cutaway isometric view

Figure 8: Solid Motor cross-sectional view

3.3.2 Concept #2: Hybrid Motor

Figure 9: Hybrid Motor cutaway isometric view

Figure 10: Hybrid motor cross-sectional view

3.3.3 Concept #3: Liquid Motor

Figure 11: Liquid Motor cutaway isometric view

Figure 12: Liquid Motor cross-sectional view

3.4 ALTITUDE TARGETING SYSTEM (ATS) DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

3.4.2 Concept #2: Computer Controlled Flaps

Figure 13: ATS Concept #2 - Computer-Controlled Flaps

3.4.3 Concept #3: Computer Deployed Parachute Brake