Student Launch Initiative CDR

1
Student Launch InitiativeCDR 1
2
Agenda

• System Overview
• System Schedule
• Subsystem Configurations
• Budget
• Issues

3
Overview

• Initial Stages of a Three Year Project
• Semester 1 Goal to develop a Boilerplate gtgt Year
  1 Vehicle

4
Objectives

• Year 1 7 kg (15 lbm) 3 km (10,000 ft)
• Year 3 25 kg (55 lbm) 30 km (100,000 ft)
• Reusable
• Short turn-around time (Minutes not Hours)
• Low cost per Launch Cycle
• Innovative and Elegant Solution

5
Schedule
6
Organization Chart
7
Avionics Scope

• On-board electronics
• Ground station (exc. Launch Station)

8
Avionics Success Criteria

• Correctly initiate recovery
• Accurately record and recover data
• Provide real-time position information

9
Avionics Down Selection
10
Avionics Solution Description

• AltAcc on-board computer
• Miniature video camera
• 2-watt video transmitter
• GPS receiver

11
Avionics Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)
12
Avionics Testing Schedule

• Hardware Acquisition
• May-June
• Sub-System Testing
• June-July
• System Integration
• August

13
Remaining Avionics Issues

• Antenna design
• Power distribution

14
Avionics Budget
15
Avionics Conclusion

• Mission Success Criteria Met
• Deploys recovery
• Records data
• Transmits GPS position information and video

16
Propulsion Scope

• Propulsion System
• Motor Ground Support and Ignition System
• Motor Mounting and Restraint System

17
Propulsion Success Criteria

• Vehicle Altitude of 3 km (10,000 ft) or greater
• Reusable
• Reliable
• Safe

18
Propulsion Preliminary Analysis

• Historical and Motor Database
• Popular Amateur Rocketry Programs
• MathCAD and Excel Codes

19
Propulsion Down Selection Chart
20
Propulsion Solution Description

• 4630cc Hybrid Motor System
• Hypertek Armageddon M
• Hypertek Launch Fill and Fire System
• 98mm Motor Mount tube

21
Propulsion Extended Analysis

• Altitude
• Vehicle Acceleration
• Vehicle Velocity
• Thrust Curve
• Propellant Mass Flow Rate
• Payload Mass vs Altitude
• Worst Case Trajectory

22
Altitude Prediction Code
23
Vehicle Acceleration
24
Vehicle Velocity
25
Thrust Curve
26
Propellant Mass Flow Rate
27
Payload Mass vs Altitude
28
Worst Case Trajectory
29
Propulsion Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)
30
Propulsion Testing Schedule

• Motor and Hardware Acquisition
• May 2001
• Subsystem Testing
• June - August 2001
• System Integration
• August 2001

31
Remaining Propulsion Issues

• Improvements to Hybrid system
• Motor Performance Data

32
Propulsion Budget
33
Propulsion Conclusion

• Mission Success Criteria Met
• 10,000 ft. Altitude criteria
• Reusable
• Reliable
• Safe
• Complies with other subsystem tolerances

34
Recovery Scope

• Deployment mechanism
• Deceleration device(s)

35
Recovery Success Criteria

• Correctly receives and utilizes signal from
  avionics to deploy system
• Achieve a safe touchdown velocity for protection
  of the vehicle, its contents, and surface objects
• Prevent excessive recovery radius
• Achieves goals without damaging the system

36
Recovery Down Selection Chart
37
Recovery Solution Description

• Drogue and deployment bag
• Rocketman R18C parachute
• 1 strap Nylon and 5/8 tubular Kevlar for shock
  cord
• Nomex heat shield
• FFFF black powder and electric matches for
  ejection charges
• 1/4 U-bolts for shock cord anchor

38
Recovery Failure Mode Effect Analysis
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
Recovery Testing Schedule

• Hardware Acquisition
• May 2001
• Subsystem Testing
• June - August 2001
• System Integration
• August 2001

42
Remaining Recovery Issues

• Proper drogue parachute
• Failsafe recovery deployment

43
Recovery Budget
44
Recovery Conclusion

• Mission Success Criteria Met
• Receives and utilizes signal from avionics to
  deploy system
• Achieve a safe touchdown velocity for the vehicle
  and its contents
• Prevent excessive recovery radius
• Achieves goals without damaging the system

45
Structures Scope

• The Structures Teams is concerned with
• Body tube
• Fins
• Nosecone
• Internalized subsystem interfaces

46
Structures Mission Success Criteria

• Provide structural integrity
• Maintain subsystem interfaces
• Minimize drag
• Provide vehicle stability in flight

47
Structures Down Selection Chart
48
Structures Solution Description

• Glassed phenolic body tube for the structural
  support of the vehicle
• Ogive shaped nosecone for optimal aerodynamic
  results
• Fins for flight stability

49
Structures Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)
50
Structures FMEA Continued
51
Structures Testing Schedule

• Hardware Acquisition
• May 2001
• Subsystem Testing
• June - August 2001
• System Integration
• August 2001

52
Remaining Structures Issues

• Optimal fin shape and configuration
• Some subsystem interface design outstanding

53
Structures Budget
54
Structures Conclusion

• Mission Success Criteria Met
• Provide structural integrity
• Maintain subsystem interfaces
• Minimize drag
• Provide vehicle stability in flight

55
Systems Success Criteria

• Mission requirements verification
• Successful integration of flight vehicle
  subsystems

56
Boilerplate Solution Vehicle

• Vehicle dimensions
• 11 ft height, 6 in diameter
• Payload Capability
• 15 lbm max
• Max volume 6 dia. X 12 long cyl.
• Propulsion
• Hybrid system
• 10,000 ft minimum altitude

57
Systems Failure Mode Effects Analysis
Mode
Subsystems Affected
System Impact
Risk Reduction
adequate subsytem testing
Subsystem Failure
various
various
and evaluation
Down Range Drift due
loss of rocket, loss
define acceptable
recovery
to Wind
of payload
operating environments
no payload
payload, avionics,
environment,loss of
Tumble Freefall
weight and balance testing
recovery
rocket, loss of
payload science
poper clearances and
Flight Path Obstruction
structures
various
flight safety rules
implementation
58
Remaining Year-1 Tasks

• System Integration
• June-September
• Boilerplate Launch
• September-October
• Year-1 Launch
• December

59
Programmatic Issues

• Timely Funding
• Supplier Delivery Timing / Scheduling
• Year-1, 2, 3 Launch Locations

60
Basic Budget
61
UAH-SLI Conclusion

• Subsystems are moving into testing
• Systems is preparing for integration
• Funding is appropriate
• Challenges remaining appear solvable
• We are ready to move forward