1. 1 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The University Of Michigan 2011

2. 2 Vehicle: i.

3. 3 Vehicle: ii. Nose Main Chute Separation Bay Main Chute Separation

4. 4 Vehicle: iii. Main Chute Seperation Aviation Bay Aviation Bay Access Cut Apogee Separation Apogee Separation Bay

5. 5 Vehicle: iv. Apogee Separation Motor Apogee Separation Bay

6. 6 Vehicle Dimensions Body Tube ◦5.5 in dia. Can ◦2.0 in dia.

7. 7 Launch Vehicle Verification Vehicle/Payload design justification Static stability analysis Materials/system justification (discussed in further detail in proceeding slides)

8. 8 Vehicle Design Justification Different ideas for reducing drag Requirements ◦Stable ◦Fast ◦Precise ◦Consistent ◦Highly variable

9. 9 Vehicle Materials NoseconePolystyrene Plastic Body Blue Tube (Apogee Comp.) CansBlue Tube (Apogee Comp.) FinsG10 fiberglass

10. 10 Material Justifications Phenolic Tubing ◦Cured paper fibers ◦Cheapest, strong, brittle Blue Tube 2.0 ◦High-density paper ◦More expensive, durable, dense Carbon Fiber ◦Strands of woven carbon ◦Most expensive, strongest, labor-intensive

11. 11 Static Stability Margin 1.5 in neutral configuration pre-launch 2.4 after engine burnout ◦Drag mechanism actuated RockSim estimated CP/CG locations On the unstable side Add mass to nose of rocket

12. 12 Recovery Scheme Two Separations ◦Apogee  Drogueless ◦500 Feet  Main Parachute Double Redundancy ◦Flight computer ◦Altimeter Apogee 500 Feet

13. 13 Vehicle Safety Verification Plan This matrix shows detrimental failures in red, recoverable failures in yellow, and failures with a minimal effect in green

14. 14 Testing Plans Ground test proper body tube separation during E-Charge ignition Use a multimeter to measure the current the Flight Computer sends to each E- Charge during ground simulations Servo selection through torque testing on flap from collected simulation/wind tunnel data

15. 15 Motor Selection Motor Manufacturer: Loki Motor Designation:L1482-SM Total Impulse:868.7 lb-s Mass pre/post burn:Pre:7.8 lb Post:3.8 lb

16. 16 Thrust-To-Weight Ratio

17. 17 Rail Exit Velocity Rail Exit Velocity:85.1 ft/s Rail Length:10 ft

18. 18 Recovery Avionics Raven Flight Computer Competition Altimeter 4 Total E-Charges 2 from Flight Computer 2 from Altimeter 1 Main Apogee Charge ◦@ 5280 feet 1 Backup 1 Main Chute Charge ◦@ 400 feet 1 Backup Apogee TB Main Chute TB AvBay Flight Computer Competition Altimeter 9V Batteries Positive TB

19. 19 Aerodynamics-Linear Flaps: i. Flap Geometry 0% closed corresponds to the position where the flap is not exposed to air flow 100% closed corresponds to where the flap is fully extended into the flow FlapMax % Closed Flap End Geometry Can Inner Dia [in] Flap Width [in] A100Semi-Circle1.504 B100Semi-Circle2.551 C65Rectangular2.551 D75Rectangular2.5512.051

20. 20 Aerodynamics-Linear Flaps: ii. Flap A Flap B

21. 21 Aerodynamics-Linear Flaps: iii. Flap CFlap D

22. 22 Aerodynamics-Linear Flaps: iv. Drag data from cases run at 300 m/s FlapMaximum Drag [N] A81.7235 B240.396 C204.086 D197.838 *NOTE: All flap data is for one flap and all rocket data is for half-body

23. 23 Aerodynamics-Rotating Flaps: i. Moment Concerns with the y component of the force generated by the flap at various angles Analyzed at the most extreme case (largest can and flap size at 45 ̊ ) Force in the y direction caused by the flap angle deflection is negated by the force it creates on the wall of the can ComponentForce in y-direction [N] Rocket-199.8 Flap199.61 *NOTE: All data is from a simulated wind speed of 300 m/s

24. 24 Aerodynamics-Rotating Flaps: ii. ANSYS Fluent CFD mesh sizes were refined in areas of interest such as the flap and the interior wall for optimal results.

25. 25 Structures-Can Analysis Analyzed the worst case scenario (flaps 100% closed) Pressure forces in front of the valve are not a concern Low pressure pockets behind the valve are not a concern

26. 26 Controls: i. Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller that will induce pressure drag as a means of regulating vehicle altitude Drag is calculated dynamically during flight Controller should respond to physical system changes in no more than 50 milliseconds and recover within 2% of the goal altitude

27. 27 Controls-System Model: ii. Dynamic Apogee-Rectifying Targeting (DART) Control System Dynamic Target : Used to aid in assuring the mean energy path solution is followed Restrained Controller : Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) derived controller with physical limits Physics Plant : Simulation of vehicle-environment interaction given controller commands Instrument Uncertainty : Propagation of instrument uncertainty into system values Alt. Projection : Projection of rocket apogee altitude with same physics plant model for consistency

28. Controls – Dynamic Target

29. Controls – Restrained Controller

30. Controls - Physics

31. Controls –Instrument Uncertainty

32. Controls – Apogee Calculation

33. 33 Flight Avionics Competition Altimeter Drag Computer Drag Servo 9V Batteries Drag Servo Drag Computer Competition Altimeter

34. 34 Propulsion Select a motor such that it will allow our rocket to exceed one mile in our minimum drag configuration

35. 35 Payload Design Drag Control System Actuating flaps located within side cans to control drag Control system will activate under specific altitude and/or velocity conditions

36. 36 Payload Test Plan i. Flap Drag Testing Simulations/flow characterization using compressible flow in ANSYS Fluent CFD over a range of Mach numbers Test drag flap mechanism in various configurations to confirm results from simulated model Produce a function for control system relative to drag, flow speed and flap deflection

37. 37 Payload Test Plan ii. Drag Flap Control System Testing 4 constants to vary (Kp, Ki, Kd, Dt) N^4 simulations for N possible different constants Parallel processing in Matlab to tackle Monte Carlo simulation NYX / FLUX supercomputers from UM Center for Advance Computing used to tune constants for best performance