Updates from the team meeting today:
NEXT MEETING AUGUST 11
Kirsty brought us awesome pens that look like 1930's-style rockets! They have a fuel tank filled with gel (no slosh baffles), and an led in the engine area. Courtesy of her Dad and AT&T.
Curtis - Launch Systems
-He is going to pick up the hydraulic parts for the launch rail from Princess Auto
-The 46' Expo truss is getting moved onto a trailer for us, stored in yard until we need it
-Still working out how to connect truss to whatever trailer/platform we use as the base
-Need to have truss properly inspected, one buckled member needs to be replaced, need someone "qualified" to advise on how to properly inspect
Joel (on behalf of Trian) - Aerostructures
-got new team account set up in MECH department, moved funds over from old IGEN account, ready to cut purchase orders through MECH department
Cedric - Industry Advisor
-introducing James to resources at local aerospace company for potential combustion chamber machining (we are hoping to get them to sponsor us), estimating FMC programming and planning work hours
-getting machining done in the near term will be difficult as they are very busy
Marco - test stand building permit
-unfortunately no luck getting anyone to sign off on design
Kirsty, Sebastian, Aaron - Avionics
-need to track down missing components from Jon/Leigh (DAQ and microprocessor) - they are probably at someone's house
-Kirsty got a key for the CHBE workshop and we have moved everything over there
-ready to order Omega sensors, Ozark GPS transmitter/receiver, and 3 DOF accelerometers
James - Propulsion
-RFQs for tanks, plumbing, most valves done, ready to order
-worked on updated sponsor info, milestones, budget, etc
-discussion of milestones
-Alumni update: 3 ISU masters students, 3 working in aerospace manufacturing, one (soon possibly two) working for NASA
Winnie - Propulsion
-working on Fire Safety Plan for test facility, almost done, need contacts for emergencies
-have been busy with Fizz robot project
Joel - Project Coordinator
-sponsorship package updated, will bring a copy to next meeting
-next meeting would fall on saturday of the BC Day long weekend, so reschedule to Aug 11
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Ramping up for Summer
Now that the term is over and exams are behind us, the UBC Rocket Project is planning to jump back into action harder than before! Most of our design phase is complete and prototypes are currently being developed for several key components of the rocket. With a little luck (and money) this summer should see a lot of action!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Recovery Update
We’ve been working on determining parachute design requirements over the past several weeks. We want to buy an already made parachute. We considered personnel parachutes, but these don’t slow our rocket down enough. The rocket would land at 7 m/s. This is too high and would result in serious damage. A cluster of 3 personnel parachute is a possible solution, but this would introduce unneeded complexity. So, we were looking for large cargo parachutes. We found several 64 foot diameter parachutes for a reasonable price. They would slow our rocket down to a safe landing speed of 3.6 m/s. The only problem is that they come without the lines. Also, we found an appropriate drogue chute. The next step would be to see how these can be integrated into our design. If everything turns out OK, the parachute and the drogue chute will be bought.
Air brake final drawings have been reviewed and the bill of materials for the air brakes has been finally created. Above is a pic of our air brake design.Sunday, April 15, 2007
Light Posting till the 28th
It's exam season at UBC, which explains the curious lack of posts over the last little while. However, a bit of good news did come through on Thursday, when I was informed that the development review committee would approve a development permit for an on-campus rocket engine test site.
We still need to get a building permit, which will take some time as we have to find a P.Eng. to provide assurance for the "building" (i.e. blockhouse) design. This will be difficult as most qualified professors don't have insurance to cover this, and because all the civil engineering P.Engs in Vancouver are up to their eyeballs in work with the huge development boom that's going on. Finding someone willing to give our structure a lookover on a pro bono basis is going to be tough.
Should any interested, qualified individuals read this, why not send us a message and let us know? We would be immensely grateful for the support, and would be happy to list you or your company as a sponsor for the donation of your time.
We still need to get a building permit, which will take some time as we have to find a P.Eng. to provide assurance for the "building" (i.e. blockhouse) design. This will be difficult as most qualified professors don't have insurance to cover this, and because all the civil engineering P.Engs in Vancouver are up to their eyeballs in work with the huge development boom that's going on. Finding someone willing to give our structure a lookover on a pro bono basis is going to be tough.
Should any interested, qualified individuals read this, why not send us a message and let us know? We would be immensely grateful for the support, and would be happy to list you or your company as a sponsor for the donation of your time.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Forging Links with Other Student Rocketry Teams
A few weeks ago, I attended the National Association of Engineering Student Councils National Conference at Purdue University. In conversation one day, the subject of rocketry was brought up and we had a nice little chat. While their team goals aren't quite the same as ours, the University of California, San Diego Hybrid Rocket Project and the Arizona State University's Daedalus Astronautics team face many similar issues. We hope to continue communications into the future in efforts to further all of our projects.
Links:
UCSD Hybrid Rocket Project
Daedalus Astronautics
Links:
UCSD Hybrid Rocket Project
Daedalus Astronautics
Monday, April 2, 2007
Engine Modeling Progress
The SolidWorks model of the combustion chamber is complete, except for some bolt holes to be added on the lower flange.
Later this week, I plan to complete the models of the saddle parts and the jacket. Over the weekend or next week, the injector plates will be modeled. After that, it'll be out to the machine shop and on to flow testing!
Isn't it pretty?
Later this week, I plan to complete the models of the saddle parts and the jacket. Over the weekend or next week, the injector plates will be modeled. After that, it'll be out to the machine shop and on to flow testing!
Isn't it pretty?Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Dynamic Stability and Launch Rails
A quick update on our wind tunnel testing and the consequences for the launch rail/launch windows:
So far we have been planning passive guidance for the rocket (read: launch rail and fins). This is largely because time and personnel constraints - once we have the initial rocket built, we plan to add a gimbal for thrust vector control at some point in the future.
The general concept is that at low velocities, the rocket is not very stable in a crosswind. By providing a rail to guide the rocket during the first few seconds of acceleration, we help keep it flying straight until it has enough velocity to remain stable on its own.
As posted earlier, our team has been lucky enough to have a large truss donated to us from Solid Rock Steel for use as our launch rail. The truss is about 14m long and capable of supporting far more than the rocket will weigh.
Stability is dependent on the relative positions of the Cg and the Cp, which we have estimated using Unigraphics for mass estimates and Rocksim for static Cp. However, we have also been trying to determine the relationship between stability and effective angle of attack, called dynamic stability. To do this, we have been testing a scale model in UBC's wind tunnel.
The (incomplete) data right now looks like there's a marginal stability angle of about 12 degrees, although we need to do more tests next week.
Once we have the marginal stability angle in hand, using the known thrust-to-weight ratio and the known launch rail length, we will know what our crosswind limits are for launch. This will allow us to develop "launch windows" and a set of conditions under which we can fly.
One difficulty with passive guidance is that Aurora-1 has a low thrust to weight ratio compared to solid propellant rockets (the T/W ratio depends on how much rocket propellant gets pumped in - therefore lower altitude flights actually have a higher T/W ratio). This means that it either needs a long launch rail, low crosswinds, or both. For instance, if the angle was actually 12 degrees, it looks like we would be limited to crosswinds under about 17km/hr for our first planned launch to 30,000ft.
Edit: Whoops, I made an error. The angle we're looking at is more like 27 degrees, not 12. This would allow the rocket, partially fueled for 30,000 ft flight, to launch in something more like 28km/hr crosswinds. Fully fueled for 100km it would only be able to launch in 18km winds. This assumes use of the entire launch rail length, however, so in reality we will have to knock down those critical wind levels by a bit to compensate for the fact that the rocket will be able to rotate near the end of the rail.
So far we have been planning passive guidance for the rocket (read: launch rail and fins). This is largely because time and personnel constraints - once we have the initial rocket built, we plan to add a gimbal for thrust vector control at some point in the future.
The general concept is that at low velocities, the rocket is not very stable in a crosswind. By providing a rail to guide the rocket during the first few seconds of acceleration, we help keep it flying straight until it has enough velocity to remain stable on its own.
As posted earlier, our team has been lucky enough to have a large truss donated to us from Solid Rock Steel for use as our launch rail. The truss is about 14m long and capable of supporting far more than the rocket will weigh.
Stability is dependent on the relative positions of the Cg and the Cp, which we have estimated using Unigraphics for mass estimates and Rocksim for static Cp. However, we have also been trying to determine the relationship between stability and effective angle of attack, called dynamic stability. To do this, we have been testing a scale model in UBC's wind tunnel.
The (incomplete) data right now looks like there's a marginal stability angle of about 12 degrees, although we need to do more tests next week.
Once we have the marginal stability angle in hand, using the known thrust-to-weight ratio and the known launch rail length, we will know what our crosswind limits are for launch. This will allow us to develop "launch windows" and a set of conditions under which we can fly.
One difficulty with passive guidance is that Aurora-1 has a low thrust to weight ratio compared to solid propellant rockets (the T/W ratio depends on how much rocket propellant gets pumped in - therefore lower altitude flights actually have a higher T/W ratio). This means that it either needs a long launch rail, low crosswinds, or both. For instance, if the angle was actually 12 degrees, it looks like we would be limited to crosswinds under about 17km/hr for our first planned launch to 30,000ft.
Edit: Whoops, I made an error. The angle we're looking at is more like 27 degrees, not 12. This would allow the rocket, partially fueled for 30,000 ft flight, to launch in something more like 28km/hr crosswinds. Fully fueled for 100km it would only be able to launch in 18km winds. This assumes use of the entire launch rail length, however, so in reality we will have to knock down those critical wind levels by a bit to compensate for the fact that the rocket will be able to rotate near the end of the rail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
