1. MNROCK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW University of Minnesota William Ung Scott Balaban Bryce Schaefer Tom Thoe 11/3/2008

2.  Mission Overview  Objectives  Results  Science Theory  History  Requirements  Success Criteria  Benefits

3. Objectives  To build a sensor package to characterize the flight of the rocket  To record changes in the Earth’s magnetic field with respect to height  To record GPS data to plot 3-dimensional course of rocket and to see if it is possible to gather such data  To measure the spin rate of the rocket with an array of light sensors

4. Results  The conditions which will be experience by a payload on similar flights  Whether it is possible to record GPS data with the given conditions  Determine how the rocket’s trajectory changes over time  To determine the amount of light sensors that are necessary to calculate spin rate

5. Science Theory  The accelerometers, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, light sensors, vibration sensors, and camera will all record the environment over time. This will allow other payloads to design to meet these conditions.  The magnetometer and GPS receiver will record data to test the possibility of recording such data from suborbital rockets.

6. History  RockOn! Workshop summer ’08 used identical accelerometers, similar pressure sensor, and had a temperature sensor  Results: A partial characterization of the flight. Accelerations were recorded, along with temperature, but pressure was beyond the sensor’s capability, and vibration was not recorded.  Spacecraft Senior Design ’08 designed a payload for a suborbital rocket to characterize the flight  Results: This design was a conceptual payload design and was never built.

7. Requirements  Weight: 4.25lbs  Center of Gravity is within.1x.1x1 inch (x,y,z) of the center  Max Height: 3.1 inch  Max Diameter: 9.2 inch  Withstand 20Gs in Z-direction and +/- 10 Gs in the X- and Y-directions  Self contained power system  All sensors must not cause electromagnetic interference

8. Success Criteria  Payload survives  Data is retrieved from the computer  Data is able to be analyzed  Theories are able to be tested

9. Benefits  A characterization of the rocket flight will be available to provide information that could prevent structural and sensor failure of a payload.  Compare actual flight profile with that of published data.  Determine the possibility of GPS tracking of suborbital rockets.

10.  Design (How will you meet your objective)  Required Hardware Parts Drawings Functional block diagram  ** Focus on how your design and associated hardware will be used to meet your objective.

11. Parts  Accelerometers: same as from RockOn! workshop  Pressure sensor: ASDX030A24R  Temperature sensor: CS490000  Vibration sensors: Crossbow CKL100HF3*  Camera: Canon Powershot A570 IS  Light sensors: LX1972  Magnetometer: Honeywell HMC1043*  GPS receiver: SiGe GN3S Sampler V2 *Sensors are still being researched. Probable ones listed.

12. Functional Block Diagram Vibration Sensors

13.  RockSat Payload Canister User Guide Compliance  Mass, Volume Estimated fraction of allotment vs. assigned fraction: 3.5lbs/4.25lbs Estimated volume: around 105 in 3, but definitely <210 in 3  Payload activation? G-switch activation Has been used in previous RockOn! workshop to activate payloads  Rocket Interface Shorting wires

14.  Shared Can Logistics Plan  University of Minnesota and University of Wyoming  Summary of each mission (one-liner) Minnesota - To characterize the flight of the rocket and attempt to record data using techniques untested in suborbital flight Wyoming - group 1:Multi-sensor: Rocket flight parameter measurements Wyoming - group 2:Explore rocket flight effects on electrical and crystal oscillators  Plan for collaboration on interfacing: email, occasional conference call Wyoming needs optical port for camera MNRock needs optical port for camera, light sensor array, and GPS receiver  Structural interfacing (Start considering…present at PDR) Similar to RockOn! workshop To the top and bottom bulkheads

15.  Management  Organizational Chart  Schedule  Preliminary mass/monetary budgets

16. Gantt Chart We are using a Gantt Chart for scheduling

17. Schedule  08-18-2008 RockSat Payload User’s Guide Released  09-08-2008 Submit Intent to Fly Form  09-12-2008 Initial Down Selections Made  09-30-2008 Online Progress Report 1 Due  10-10-2008 Earnest Payment of $1,000 Due  10-15-2008 Conceptual Design Review (CoDR) Due  10-30-2008 Online Progress Report 2 Due  11-14-2008 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Due  11-28-2008 Online Progress Report 3 Due  12-12-2008 Critical Design Review (CDR) Due  12-19-2008 Final Down Select—Flights Awarded  01-23-2009 First Installment Due ($5,500)  01-30-2009 RockSat Payload Canisters Sent to Customers

18. Schedule (cont.)  01-30-2009 Online Progress Report 4 Due  02-20-2009 Individual Subsystem Testing Reports Due  02-27-2009 Online Progress Report 5 Due  03-27-2009 Payload Subsystem Integration and Testing Report Due  04-10-2009 Final Installment Due ($5,500)  04-17-2009 First Full Mission Simulation Test Report Due  04-30-2009 Online Progress Report 6 Due  05-22-2009 Second Full Mission Simulation Test Report Due  05-29-2009 Online Progress Report 7 Due  06-10-2009 Launch Readiness Review (LRR) Teleconference  06-(22-24)-2009 MOI and Vibration Testing at WFF  06-24-2009 RockSat Payload Canister Integration with WFF  06-26-2009 Launch Day

19. Mass/Monetary Budget  Mass Budget: 4.25 lbs  Monetary Budget: $5000  Includes equipment to build  Includes spares for multiple flights/failures

20.  Conclusions   A combination of practical characterization and experimental research form to make this sensor package a valuable one to fly at this next RockOn! workshop.  Due to communication problems, this Conceptual Design Review was thought to be in December until a short time before the CoDR slides were required. These communication problems were an accumulation of smaller ones, and have hopefully been resolved.  No CSci or EE personnel are available currently for our project, leaving some sensor questions and hardware requirements unknown. We are actively trying to remedy this problem and are confident personnel will be found shortly. Until such time, progress will simply be slower than hoped.  If chosen to fly at the RockOn! workshop of ‘09, the MNRock team hopes to complete a payload environment document to provide more precise payload requirements for future workshops by the end of the summer.