Project Nova Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

1. Project Nova Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

2. Vehicle Overview Nose Cone Avionics Section Booster Section Main Parachute Tube Coupler Fins Shock Cord Drogue Motor Payload Bay Avionics Bay Shock Cord Static Stability Chamber

3. Vehicle Dimensions • Length: 108 in • Diameter: 5 in • Mass: 55.2 lbm • Material: • Nose cone – Fiberclass • Body – Fiberglass • Fins – Fiberglass 18 in 41 in 108 in

4. Vehicle Dimensions • Number of fins: 4 • Root chord: 7 in • Tip chord: 3.352 in • Height: 4 in • Sweep length: 2.309 in • Sweep angle: 30°

5. Static Stability Margin • CG Location: 66.655 in • CP Location: 77.468 in • Stability: 2.16 cal 77.468 66.348

6. Static Stability Margin Stability: 3.76 Stability: 2.16

7. Static Stability Margin • If the final weight of the rocket falls below the optimal weight, a chamber has been placed within the rocket where steel discs will be placed. • This chamber was placed near the current CG position to avoid large changes in the stability. Motor Stability Chamber

8. Vehicle Justification • The vehicle has been designed to reach a target altitude of 15,500 feet. • Its goal is to descend at a controlled rate allowing the camera payload to survey the ground and identify hazardous landing areas. • Using the two criteria's above, the vehicle was designed around: • Motor • Aerodynamics • Payload deployment • Payload size

9. Motor Selection - Comparison

10. Motor Selection • Justification: • Using the values for typical mass increases experienced from PDR to final design, an estimated allowable mass increase was calculated using the two rocket motors. • This allowable mass increase would be the maximum mass increase before the vehicle would no longer be able to achieve its target altitude.

11. Motor Selection – Justification (N2600) • The values for apogee achieved and stability were calculated using OpenRocket.

12. Motor Selection – Justification (N2600) • The values for total mass at liftoff and apogee achieved at those masses were plotted against each other. • A trendline was plotted against these values to provide an equation for calculating an estimated value of mass allowed to achieve 15500 ft.

13. Motor Selection – Justification (N2600) • Using the equation, a total mass value was calculated. • The optimal mass margin allowed is 6% for this motor.

14. Motor Selection – Justification (N2200) • The same calculations and simulations were performed using the N2200 motor. • The optimal mass increase allowable was estimated to be 23%.

15. Motor Selection • Based on the calculations made in the previous slides, the motor that will provide the best performance for our launch vehicle is the Cesaroni Technologies N2200. • Possible Dealers: • What’s Up Hobbies (Stocton, CA) • Wildman Rocketry (Van Orin, IL)

16. Aerodynamics • The total drag coefficient ranges from 0.41 at a Mach number of 0.3 to 0.59 at Mach 1.03, the simulated highest Mach achieved by our vehicle.

17. Simulated Performance • Velocity off rod (7 ft): 57.7 ft/s • Apogee: 15517 ft • Time to apogee: 31.1 s • Max velocity: 1133 ft/s • Max acceleration: 260 ft/s2 • T/W ratio: 7.20

18. Simulated Performance • The stability of the rocket in a 5mph horizontal wind is shown below. The vertical orientation decreases from 90°at launch to 55°at apogee.

19. Simulated Performance • The drift of the rocket was calculated under five wind speeds: 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 mph.

20. Construction of Airframe • AutoClave layup • Fiberglass construction • Male vs. female molds

21. Dual-Deployment Recovery System • Stages • Drogue Deployment at Apogee • Main Deployment at lower, set altitude • Landing • Electronics • Altimeter • Connections

22. Benefits and Disadvantages • Benefits • Reduces Drift • Avoids Initial Deployment at High Speed • Disadvantages • Possibility of Simultaneous Deployment • Higher Risk of Failure

23. Safety Advisor • Christopher Short • Certified Class 3 Operator • NAR/TRA Advisor • Will purchase, store, and transport materials • Installs engines on site when ready to test • Guides Team in practicing proper safety procedures throughout the project

24. Safety Officer • Jacob Herrera • Briefs Team on proper safety procedures before each lab meeting • Ensures proper MSDS are on site • Inspects first aid kit and restocks if needed • Inspects lab machinery to ensure its functionality • Organizes bi-monthly safety meetings to address any documented incidents and effectiveness of safety techniques

25. NAR/TRA Procedures • NAR high powered rocket code will be reviewed by Team • MSDS are available to ensure materials are used properly • Members are provided with proper lab attire and emergency safety equipment

26. Purchase, Store, Transport, and Use Logistics • Christopher Short has a workshop that is used for personal rocket projects that he has volunteered for Project Nova • Chris is experienced with high powered rocketry and the purchasing methods for energetics • He will transport and store the materials used in Project Nova

27. Test Sites • Locations • Phoenix Missile Works in Sylacauga, AL • Southeast Alabama Rocketry Society in Samson, AL • Team will abide by the safety regulations of each club • Chris Short will inspect each rocket prior to on site RSO evaluation

28. Hazard Briefing and Safety Acknowledgement • All Team members will be briefed on possible dangers and risks before working • Team will be taught to practice the proper safety procedures and precautions that are associated with high powered rockets • A Safety Acknowledgement form was signed by all members stating they will comply with proper safety procedures and applicable local/state/federal laws

29. Emergency Procedures • Weather • In case of severe weather, the lab and the halls outside of the lab are designated shelter areas • Fire • All members have been briefed on the evacuation procedures in case of fire • Injury • A first aid kit is brought on site and emergency service contacts are kept on the lab door

30. Payload 1, SLS Technology • Requirements • Analysis of ground hazards • On-board processing • Real-time transmission • Justification • Sophistication and development of unmanned technologies

31. Design • Camera – CPU interface • Data structures • Program analysis • Transmission to ground terminal

32. Redundancy • Separate from other electronics • Complete power redundancy

33. Payload 2, Boost Phase Analysis • Requirements • Structural and dynamic analysis of systems during boost • Justification • Importance of engine characteristics • Value of in-flight data • Importance of boost-phase

34. Motor Analysis / Extrapolation

35. Electrical System • Risk to Electrical System • Incidental damage • Proposed Analysis • Accelerometer data

37. Payload 3, Environmental Effects • Requirements: • Analysis of Supersonic flight on vehicle paint / coatings • The payload will determine the suitability of NeverWet, a commercially available waterproofing material, for use in aerospace applications

38. Justification • Corrosion and Wing Icing are widespread, expensive, and potentially dangerous hazards facing the aerospace industry • A waterproofing material that can withstand transonic effects could be suitable for use • on wing surfaces to prevent wing icing • on spars and struts to prevent water based corrosion

39. Procedure • NeverWet will be applied to the nose cone of the rocket • A material that changes color when wet will be applied under the coating of NeverWet • Water will be applied before the flight to ensure proper application and after to determine if degradation of the material occurred

40. Additional NeverWet Info • Aerosol Spray Application System with separate base and top coats • Dry Heat Resistance is 230F • 30 minutes until drying occurs (12 hours to full cure) • Care will need to be taken due to flammability hazards • Skin contact and inhalation will be avoided

41. Conclusion • Review • Design • Safety • Moving Forward • Questions