University of Notre Dame

2019-2020

N OTRE D AME R OCKETRY T EAM

C RITICAL D ESIGN R EVIEW

NASA S TUDENT L AUNCH 2020

L UNAR S AMPLE R ETRIEVAL S YSTEM AND A IR B RAKING S YSTEM

Submitted January 10, 2020

365 Fitzpatrick Hall of Engineering

Notre Dame, IN 46556
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Contents

Contents i

List of Tables v

List of Figures vii

1 Summary of Report 1
1.1 General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Launch Vehicle Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Payload Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Changes Since PDR 2

2.1 Changes Made to Launch Vehicle Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Changes Made to Payload Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3 Changes Made to Project Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3 Launch Vehicle Technical Design 3

3.1 Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1 Mission Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Launch Vehicle Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2.1 Size and Mass Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2 Final Motor Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3 Target Apogee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Subsystem Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1 Nose Cone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2 Payload Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.3 Transition Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.4 Recovery Body Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.5 Fin Can . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.6 Fins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4 Component Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1 Bulkheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.2 Centering Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.3 Motor Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5 Material Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5.1 Airframe Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.5.2 Load Bearing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.5.3 Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6 Subscale Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.6.1 Scale Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.6.2 Subscale Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.6.3 Subscale Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6.4 Flight Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

i
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3.6.5 Full Scale Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.7 Air Braking System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.7.1 Mission Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.7.2 Mechanical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.7.2.1 System Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.7.2.2 Component Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.7.3 Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.7.3.1 Drag Tab Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.7.3.2 Drag Tab Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.7.3.3 Mechanism Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.7.4 Electrical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.7.4.1 Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.7.4.2 Servo Motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.7.4.3 Microcontroller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.7.4.4 Printed Circuit Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.7.4.5 Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.7.5 Control Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.7.5.1 Data Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.7.5.2 PID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.7.6 Sub-scale Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.8 Recovery System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.8.1 Parachutes, Harnesses, and Attachment Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.8.2 Recovery Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.8.3 Altimeter Bay Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.8.3.1 Rocket Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.8.4 Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.8.4.1 Subsystem Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.8.4.1.1 Onboard Vehicle System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.8.4.1.2 Relay Station Transceiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.8.4.1.3 Ground Station Transceiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.8.4.1.4 Ground Station User Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.8.4.2 Telemetry Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.8.4.2.1 RF Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.9 Mission Performance Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.9.1 Flight Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.9.2 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.9.3 Main Parachute Opening Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.9.4 Descent Rate and Kinetic Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.9.5 Vehicle Descent Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.9.6 Vehicle Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4 Safety 84
4.1 Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.2 Safety Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.2.1 Project Risk Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

ii
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

4.2.1.1 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

4.2.1.2 Launch Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.2.2 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.2.2.1 Vehicles Flight Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.2.2.2 Vehicles Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.2.2.3 Air Braking System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.2.2.4 Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.2.2.5 Payload Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.2.2.6 Payload Deployment and Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.2.2.7 Launch Support Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.2.3 Environmental Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.2.3.1 Environmental Hazards to Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.2.3.2 Vehicle Hazard to Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

5 Technical Design: Lunar Sample Retrieval System 129

5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.1.1 Mission Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.1.2 Summary of Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.2 Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.2.1 Full Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.2.2 Launch Vehicle Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.3 ROD System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.3.1 Payload Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.3.1.1 Retention Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.3.2 Nose Cone Ejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.3.3 Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.3.4 UAV and Rover Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.4 UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.4.1 Mechanical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.4.2 Electrical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5.4.3 Target Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.4.3.1 Detection Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.4.3.2 Search Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.4.3.3 Ground Station Relay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.5 Rover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5.5.1 Mechanical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5.5.2 Electrical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.5.2.1 Microcontroller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.5.2.2 RF Transceiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.5.2.3 Rover GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.5.2.4 Rover IMU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.5.2.5 Rover Drive Motors and Motor Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.5.2.6 Rover Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
5.5.2.7 Circuit Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5.5.3 Sample Retrieval System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

iii
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

5.5.3.1 Archimedes Screw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

5.5.3.2 Rover Integration and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
5.5.4 Rover Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.5.4.1 Control Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.5.4.2 Rover Compass Heading Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

6 Project Plan 168

6.1 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.1.1 Launch Vehicle Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.1.2 Recovery Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
6.1.3 Payload: Deployment Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.1.4 Payload: Rover Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.1.5 Payload: UAV Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6.1.6 ABS Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
6.2 Requirements & Verifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
6.2.1 NASA Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
6.2.2 Team Derived Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
6.3 Project Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
6.3.1 Project Sponsorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
6.3.2 Project Revenue Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
6.3.3 Line Item Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
6.4 Project Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
6.4.1 Vehicle Design Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
6.4.2 Recovery Subsystem Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
6.4.3 Lunar Sample Retrieval System Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
6.4.4 Air Braking System Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
6.4.5 Systems & Safety Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
6.4.6 STEM Engagement Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
6.4.6.1 STEM Engagement Project Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Appendix A Full Black Powder Calculations A1

Appendix B ABS A4
B.1 Kalman Filter Python Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4
B.2 PID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A6
B.3 4th Order Runge-Kutta Flight Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A7
B.4 PID Error Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A9

Appendix C Some team’s stuff... A11

C.1 Kewl Complicated Algorithm Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A11

Appendix D Another team’s stuff... A12

D.1 Anotha Kewl Complicated Algorithm Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A12

Appendix E References A12

iv
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

List of Tables
1 List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
2 Changes Made to Launch Vehicle Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Payload Criteria Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4 Changes Made to Project Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5 Component Material Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6 Section and Component Length Summary. *Does not contribute to vehicle’s
overall length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7 Nose Cone Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9 Summary of Material Selection for Airframe Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10 Comparison Between 2:5 of Fullscale Vehicle and Actual Subscale Vehicle . . . . . 24
11 Subscale Launch Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12 Subscale Test Flight Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13 Material Properties of Nylon 6/6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
14 CFD Simulation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
15 BNO055 Accelerometer Technical Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
16 ADXL345 Accelerometer Technical Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
17 MPL3115A2 Barometer Technical Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
18 D845WP Servo Motor Technical Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
19 Raspberry Pi Zero technical specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
20 Control Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
21 Average Altitude at Apogee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
22 FruityChutes CFC-24 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
23 FruityChutes IFC-120-S Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
24 Drogue Parachute Black Powder Ejection Charge Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
25 Main Parachute Black Powder Ejection Charge Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
26 Nose Cone Black Powder Ejection Charge Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
27 Vehicle Sensor Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
28 Calculated Sensor Data Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
29 Estimated Power Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
30 Static Stability Margin Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
31 Main Parachute Load Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
32 Vehicle Descent and Kinetic Energy Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
33 Vehicle Descent Time Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
34 Probability of hazard occurrence classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
35 Severity of hazard classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
36 Risk Assessment Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
37 Description of Risk Levels and Management Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
38 Project Risk Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
39 Personnel Hazard Analysis-Construction Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
40 Personnel Hazard Analysis-Launch Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
41 FMEA- Vehicles Flight Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
42 FMEA - Vehicles Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

v
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

43 FMEA- Air Braking System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

44 FMEA- Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
45 FMEA- Payload Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
46 FMEA - Payload Deployment and Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
47 FMEA- Launch Support Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
48 Environmental Hazards to Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
49 Vehicle Hazard to Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
50 Summary of LSRS subsystem weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
51 Solenoid Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
52 Finite Element Analysis of the Payload Retention Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
53 Nose Cone Black Powder Ejection Charge Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
55 Weight Allocation of UAV Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
56 UAV Components List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
57 98 rpm Econ Gear Motor Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
58 Rover: Estimated Power Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
59 Testing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
60 Test ID Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
61 LVT2 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
62 LVT3 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
63 Test ID Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
64 LVT5 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
65 LVT6 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
66 RT1 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
67 RT2 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
68 RT3 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
69 PD1 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
70 PD2 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
71 PD3 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
72 PD4 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
73 PRT1 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
74 PUT1 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
75 PUT2 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
76 PUT3 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
77 PUT4 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
78 PUT5 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
79 PUT6 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
80 ABT1 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
81 Recorded Altitude at Apogee for Sub-scale Flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
82 ABT2 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
83 ABT3 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
84 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
85 NASA Launch Vehicle Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
86 NASA Recovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
87 NASA Payload Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

vi
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

88 NASA Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

89 Derived Launch Vehicle Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
90 Derived Recovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
91 Derived Payload Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
92 Derived Systems and Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
93 NDRT 2019-2020 Sponsorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
94 NDRT 2019-2020 Project Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
95 Itemized Budget. Prices highlighted in light blue indicate projected purchases for
mid-January. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
96 Summary of Black Powder Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3

List of Figures
1 NDRT 2020 Competition Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Launch Vehicle Detailed Section Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 Launch Vehicle Weight Allocation per System in oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4 L1395-BS Time-Thrust Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 Student Fabricated Nose Cone Engineering Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6 Student Fabricated Nose Cone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7 Nose cone, Payload Bay, and Transition Section Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8 Nose cone, Payload Bay, and Transition Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9 Flow over transiton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10 Transition Section Technical Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11 3D Printed Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12 Assembled Recovery Body Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13 Fin Can Component Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14 Assembled Fin Can . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
15 Assembled Fin Can Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16 Fin Alignment Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
17 Fin Design and Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
18 Centering Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
19 FEA of Centering Rings in Motor Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
20 Cesaroni 75mm, 4g Aluminum Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
21 Load Cell Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
22 Plywood Failed Bulkhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
23 View of the Subscale Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
24 As-built Subscale Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
25 Wind tunnel testing November 11-12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
26 Wind tunnel diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
27 Drag Coefficient data from Wind Tunnel testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
28 Subscale launches compared to simulated flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
29 Subscale velocity compared to simulated flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
30 OpenRocket simulation for subscale flight altitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
31 OpenRocket simulation for subscale flight velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

vii
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

32 Model of ABS within a section of the fin can . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

33 Technical Drawing of Full ABS with Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
34 Dowel rod for drag tab orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
35 Technical Drawing of Drag Tabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
36 Pressure Profile on Drag Tabs for Mach Number 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
37 Velocity Profile for Incompressible Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
38 Boundary conditions for drag tab FEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
39 FEA- Max. von Mises Stress for Drag Tabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
40 FEA- Deformation of Drag Tabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
41 Motion of ABS mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
42 Central hub component of ABS mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
43 Linkage component of ABS mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
44 Drag Tab Extension vs. Servo Motor Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
45 Servo motor circuit schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
46 ABS Electronics Wiring Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
47 PCB Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
48 CAD Model of PCB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
49 ABS Control Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
50 Kalman Filter Applied to Sub-scale Flight Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
51 Control Flow Algorithm from Burnout to Apogee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
52 Simulated flight paths verifying the PID control algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
53 Nomex blanket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
54 Nomex deployment bag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
55 Tubular Nylon shock cord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
56 Parachute arrangement on descent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
57 Stainless steel quick link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
58 Recovery Altimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
59 Altimeter Deployment Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
60 Lithium-Polymer Battery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
61 Recovery Switches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
62 Raven3 Circuit Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
63 Stratologger Circuit Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
64 Full CRAM Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
65 Assembled CRAM core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
66 Drawing of CRAM top bulkhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
69 Finite Element Analysis of CRAM bottom bulkhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
67 Drawing of CRAM bottom bulkhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
68 Finite Element Analysis of CRAM top bulkhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
70 Drawing of CRAM body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
71 Finite Element Analysis of CRAM body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
72 Drawing of CRAM tube adapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
73 Finite Element Analysis of CRAM Ring adapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
74 Telemetry System Block Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
75 Gain Plots for the ANT-433-MHW-SMA-S Antenna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
76 Drawing of Telemetry Housing Cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

viii
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

77 Finite Element Analysis for Stresses in Telemetry Housing Cylinder . . . . . . . . . 77

78 Launch Vehicle Flight Profile OpenRocket Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
79 Runge-Kutta Flight Profile Simulation for various wind conditions . . . . . . . . . . 79
80 OpenRocket Stability Plot for predicted flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
81 Vehicle Dynamics during Main Parachute Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
82 OpenRocekt simulated flight profile, at 0◦ launch angle and wind speeds of 5-20
mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
83 CAD Model of full LSRS within the Payload Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
84 LSRS Exploded View of Vehicle Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
85 Drawing of Stationary Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
86 Drawing of Sliding Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
87 ROD System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
88 CAD Model of Full LSRS within the Payload Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
89 UAV Sled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
90 Retention Solenoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
91 FEA of Sliding Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
92 FEA of Stationary Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
93 FEA of Primary LSRS Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
94 Retention Electrical Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
95 Nose Cone Ejection Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
96 Finite Element Analysis of Bulkheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
97 Finite Element Analysis of Stability Rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
98 Finite Element Analysis of Sliding Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
99 CAD of Orientation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
100 CAD of Orientation featuring Stoppers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
101 FEA of Aft Bulkhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
102 FEA of Orientation Bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
103 LSRS Center of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
104 Drawing of UAV Sled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
105 CAD Model of UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
106 UAV Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
107 Drawing of UAV Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
108 UAV Electrical Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
109 UAV Data Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
110 A possible target image. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
111 HSV Spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
112 Left: Thresholded image before morphology. Right: Thresholded image after
morphology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
113 Target Detection control flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
114 From the left, graphs of the linear sweep, outward spiral, and pie sweep flight paths.150
115 Histograms of Linear Sweep results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
116 Histograms of Outward Spiral results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
118 Flowchart of informed search algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
117 Histograms of Pie Sweep results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
119 From the left, RFM9x ,TBS Crossfire Micro TX, and TBS Diamond antenna. . . . . . 152

ix
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

120 TBS Dominator Rx Video Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

121 FrSky Taranis X9D Plus Radio Transmitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
122 Manual Controller Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
123 Mechanical Design of the Rover in Translation Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
124 Diagram for how the DC motors will interface with the crank wheel. This system
will utilize a pressure fit and set screws to ensure torque transmission. . . . . . . . 156
125 Exploded view of the passive wheel assembly of the motor. Note the splines on
the hub and the wheel cover used to secure the assembly together. . . . . . . . . . . 157
126 FEA of Crank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
127 FEA of the Rover Body and Link. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
128 Component Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
129 From the left, RFM95W Radio Module, MTK3339 GPS Module, BNO055 IMU . . . . 160
130 From the left, Econ Gear Motor and Sabertooth 2x5 Motor Controller . . . . . . . . 161
131 PIC32 Primary Connections Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
132 Rover PCB Power Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
133 Rover PCB Sensors and Radio Subsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
134 CAD of Sample Retrieval Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
135 CAD of Archimedes Screw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
136 CAD of Archimedes Screw Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
137 CAD of Archimedes Screw Vehicles Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
138 Rover Software Control Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
139 Sub-scale drag tabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
140 Sub-scale drag tabs on coupler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
141 Second Semester Timeline for the Vehicle Design Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
142 Second Semester Timeline for the Recovery Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
143 Second Semester Timeline for the Lunar Sample Retrieval System Team. . . . . . . 231
144 Second Semester Timeline for the Air Braking System Team. The team is ahead of
schedule in finalizing their Kalman Filter, 4th Order Runge-Kutta, and PID codes. . 232
145 Second Semester Timeline for the Systems & Safety Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
146 Second Semester Timeline for STEM Engagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

x
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 1: List of Acronyms

Acronym Meaning
ABS Air Braking System
ACCST Advanced Continuous Channel Shifting Technology
AGL Above Ground Level
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFEA Competition Future Excursion Area
CPU Central Processing Unit
CRAM Compact Removable Avionics Module
DSM Digital Spectrum Modulation
ESC Electronic Speed Controller
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
FPS Frames Per Second
FPV First-Person View
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit
LED Light Emitting Diode
LiPo Lithium Polymer
NDRT Notre Dame Rocketry Team
OpenCV Open Source Computer Vision Library
OPTO Optoisolator
PCB Printed Circuit Board
PDB Power Distribution Board
PID Proportional-Integral-Derivative
PLA Polylactic Acid
PWM Pulse-Width Modulation
RC Radio Controlled
RF Radio Frequency
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

xi
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

1 Summary of Report

1.1 General Information

School Name: Team Lead: Mentor:
University of Notre Dame Collette Gillaspie Dave Brunsting
Team Name: [email protected] NAR/TRA Level 2
Notre Dame Rocketry Team 402.699.736 [email protected]
(NDRT) Safety Officer: 269.838.4275
Address: Brooke Mumma NAR/TRA Section:
365 Fitzpatrick Hall [email protected] TRA #12340
Notre Dame, IN 46556 314.288.8297 Michiana Rocketry

1.2 Launch Vehicle Summary

The launch vehicle is 134 in. long with a loaded mass of 798 oz. The final motor choice
is a Cesaroni L1395, which will allow the vehicle to attain the target altitude of 4,444 ft after
launching from a 12 ft. 1515 rail. The drogue parachute is a FruityChute CFC-24 and will deploy
at apogee, and at 600 ft. the the main parachute, a FruityChute Iris Ultra 120 Compact, will
deploy.

1.3 Payload Summary

Lunar Sample Retrieval System

The primary payload experiment is a Lunar Ice Sample Retrieval System, which includes a
Rover and an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The payload will be secured in the launch
vehicle for flight and recovery, and a black powder charge will eject the nose cone at 450 ft. for
deployment purposes. The Rover, powered by an eccenctric crank mechanism, will be
activated to pull out the UAV upon landing. The autonomous UAV, with a fail-safe manual
override system, will ascend and find a Competition Future Excursion Area (CFEA) using
computer vision and target detection algorithms. The UAV will then descend to the CFEA,
land, and transmit the GPS coordinates of the CFEA to the Rover. The Rover will deploy upon
reception of the coordinates, drive to the center of the CFEA, and activate an Archimedes
screw sample retrieving system. Finally, the Rover will transport the 10 mL sample 10 ft.
Air Braking System
The secondary payload experiment is an Air Braking System (ABS), which will implement
a control system for inducing a variable drag force in order to meet the target apogee of 4,444
ft. A set of drag surfaces will be extended from the body of the launch vehicle to increase the
acting drag force, therefore decreasing the projected apogee, until the target has been achieved.
The system will use a microcontroller to keep track of altitude and velocity sensor data and run
a closed loop PID control algorithm to adjust the extension of the drag tabs until the predicted
apogee matches the target apogee. The microcontroller will adjust the extension of the drag
tabs by controlling a servo motor, which will drive a mechanism to actuate the drag tabs.

1
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

2 Changes Since PDR

2.1 Changes Made to Launch Vehicle Criteria

Table 2: Changes Made to Launch Vehicle Criteria

Decision Justification
Apogee simulations yielded altitudes above the range of
Payload weight increase from 100 the Air Braking System & Lunar Sample Retrieval System
oz to 111 oz CAD mass estimate predicts a system heavier than
originally expected
Telemetry for recovery allocated Space available in the nose cone in order to fulfill NASA
45 oz in the nose cone Requirement 3.12.

2.2 Changes Made to Payload Criteria

Table 3: Payload Criteria Changes

Decision Justification
Mechanically robust: FEA shows that four friction fitted
solenoids can successfully retain the LSRS &
LSRS retention via solenoids
Electronically simple: Control of system governed by a
simple processor
Nose cone ejection for Simplicity: Dual-vehicle payload system of rover and
deployment UAV makes mechanical deployment complicated

2.3 Changes Made to Project Plan

Table 4: Changes Made to Project Plan

Decision Justification
Previous software did not allow for great detail in
Gantt chart software updated
subsystem project tests, deadlines, etc.
Budget presented in CDR is nearly complete. Both items
that have been purchased along with items that the team
Budget updated
plans to purchase are listed in the itemized budget (Table
95)

2
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3 Launch Vehicle Technical Design

3.1 Mission Statement

The mission of the Notre Dame Rocket Team is to design and build a launch vehicle to reach
a target altitude of 4,444 ft, measured with the use of on-board altimeters and upon landing
deploy a UAV and rover for simulated lunar ice sample collection. The launch vehicle will be
designed to be recoverable and reusable without need of repair and have four independent
sections. A full list of NASA Requirements can be found in Section 6.2.1.

3.1.1 Mission Success Criteria

In order to evaluate mission success, the team has derived a set of criteria as follows:
V.MS.1 The launch vehicle will begin a controlled ascent upon motor ignition and exit the
rail with a velocity of 65 ft/s.
V.MS.2 The launch vehicle will reach a burnout without incident at which time the Air
Braking System will activate.
V.MS.3 The launch vehicle will reach a target apogee of 4444 ± 44 ft AGL
V.MS.4 The drogue parachute will deploy at apogee and the main parachute will deploy at
600 ft AGL.
V.MS.5 All sections of the launch vehicle will descend safely and be fully reusable on the
same day.

3.2 Launch Vehicle Overview

The 2019-2020 Notre Dame Rocketry Team is proud to present this year’s launch vehicle.
The launch vehicle will will allow the team to safely house, launch to an apogee of 4,444 ft and
recover the Rover and UAV. The full-scale launch vehicle will be composed of four independent
sections: the nose cone, the payload bay, the recovery bay, and the fin can. This year’s vehicle
can be found in Figure 1. The nose cone will house the telemetry module while the payload
bay and recovery body tube will house their respective subsystems. The fin can contains the
secondary payload, motor, and fins. The airframe has a variable diameter with a fore diameter
of 8 in. and an aft diameter of 6 in. The center of gravity (CG) is located 75.75 in. from the tip of
the nose cone and the center of pressure (CP) is located 96.36 in. from the tip of the nose cone,
giving the vehicle a stability of 2.57 calibers as described in Section 3.9.2.

3
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 1: NDRT 2020 Competition Vehicle

Found in Table 5 is a summary of each component and the selected material for the airframe
section. Materials were selected based on availability, cost, and weight. Material analysis is
further discussed under Section 3.5.1.

Table 5: Component Material Summary

Component Material
Nose Cone ASA Plastic
Payload Bay Fiberglass
Transition Section ASA PLastic
Recovery Tube Carbon Fiber
Fin Can Carbon Fiber
Motor Mount Carbon Fiber

3.2.1 Size and Mass Statement

The launch vehicle is made of carbon fiber, fiberglass, and 3D printed ASA plastic and has a
length of 134 in. with a fore outer diameter of 8.005 in. and an aft outer diameter of 6.122 in.,
giving the payload, recovery system and flight controls adequate space to function. There are
four G10 fiberglass isosceles trapezoid fins. The launch vehicle has a loaded weight of 822 oz
and an unloaded weight of 670 oz with an estimated loaded stability margin of 2.63 cal. Figure 2
shows the updated model of the launch vehicle which is followed by a summary of the lengths
of each section and component in Table 6.

4
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 2: Launch Vehicle Detailed Section Breakdown

Table 6: Section and Component Length Summary. *Does not contribute to vehicle’s overall length

Section Label Component Length [in.] Diameter [in.] (if applicable)

I A Nose cone 24 8
Telemetry* 5.5
II B Payload Bay 23
C Transition Section 5 Variable
III D Recovery Tube 36 6.112
Main Parachute* 21
CRAM* 6
Drogue Parachute* 6
IV F Fin Can 44
ABS* 12
G Motor Mount* 24 3
E Fins* 6 (height)

Figure 3 is a pie chart depicting the weight breakdown of each subsystem of the launch
vehicle in oz.

5
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 3: Launch Vehicle Weight Allocation per System in oz

3.2.2 Final Motor Choice

The motor selected for this launch vehicle is the Cesaroni L1395. This motor is at the
higher end of total impulse for L-class motors with a total impulse of 4895.4 Ns. When taking
conservative estimates for payload and component masses, this motor will exceed the target
altitude of 4,444 ft allowing for effective use of ABS to adjust to the target apogee. More
detailed information, including the vehicle’s performance at different launch angles and wind
speeds, can be found in Section 3.9. Additionally, the vehicle will utilize a 12 ft. 1515 launch
rail. The selected motor’s thrust curve can be found in Figure 4.

6
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 4: L1395-BS Time-Thrust Curve

3.2.3 Target Apogee

The team has selected a target apogee of 4,444 ft for the launch vehicle. For ideal launch
conditions—a launch with 0 mph wind—an OpenRocket simulation for the launch vehicle gave
a maximum apogee of 4,939 ft, with 0 mph wind and a launch angle of 5°, and a minimum
apogee of 4,354 ft, with 20 mph wind and a launch angle of 10°. The target apogee is achievable
in nearly all expected launch conditions using the ABS, which is predicted to be able to reduce
apogee by 500 ft.

3.3 Subsystem Design

Each design decision was informed by weight and size restrictions, material properties, and
the ability to purchase or manufacture parts. Final decisions were made through trade studies
in the Preliminary Design Review. The design of each section of the launch vehicle is discussed
in more detail in Sections 3.3.1-3.3.6.

7
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3.3.1 Nose Cone

The nose cone will follow a 3:1 tangential ogive shape with curvature defined by Equation 1.
This results in an ogive radius, ρ, of 74 in. The final dimensions of the nose cone are displayed
in Table 7.

R 2 + L2
ρ= = 74 in. (1)
2R

ρ Radius (in.)
L Nose Cone Length (in.)
R Base Radius (in.)

Table 7: Nose Cone Dimensions

Dimension Value
Exposed Length (in.) 24
Shoulder Length (in.) 4
Base Outer Diameter (in.) 8
Base Inner Diameter (in.) 7.815
Weight (oz) 35

Due to the commercial scarcity of a nose cone with the 8 in. base diameter needed to fit
the payload bay, the nose cone will be 3D printed in ASA plastic in-house through the Notre
Dame IDEA Center Innovation Lab. Due to print size constraints, the 24 in. nose cone will be
printed in three separate parts that fit together. The top and bottom parts are joined together
with the third part, which acts like a coupler. The central piece also has an integrated mount
for the telemetry module. The entire assembly is then epoxied together. This three-part design
is depicted in Figure 5, and Figure 6 shows the full part. The outer surface will be smoothed
by light sanding and painted to ensure an aerodynamic finish. ASA plastic was selected for the
nose cone material because the nosecone is non-load bearing, and therefore does not require
high material strength, and is less dense than Garolite G10 fiberglass.

8
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

DETAIL C
Payload Bulkhead Retainer
SCALE 1:2 .25

1.44

A Fore 3D Printed Section

.25

Aft 3D Printed Section Middle 3D Printed Section

D 24

B
D

4 C DETAIL B-
SECTION D-D Telemetry
A 7.26 SECTION A-A Three-part Assembly Adapter
7.8
8.01
SCALE 1:5 SCALE 1:2 SCALE 1:2
Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: John McBride
Year: 2019-2020 Title: 3D Printed Nose Cone Date: 1/10/20 Scale: 1:5

Figure 5: Student Fabricated Nose Cone Engineering Drawing

Figure 6: Student Fabricated Nose Cone

3.3.2 Payload Bay

The payload bay is a 23 in. long fiberglass body tube, which will house the scoring payload to
be deployed after landing. The 8 in. diameter body tube was selected to meet the Team Derived
Requirement V.5 of radio transparency for the payload. The fore end of the 23 in. long body tube

9
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

will be connected to the nose cone and the aft end will be connected to the transition section.
The nose cone will be secured with shear pins and the transition section will be secured to the
payload bay using a coupler, two centering rings, and epoxy. Figure 7 shows a detailed drawing
of this section, and Figure 8 shows the CAD rendering for this section.

Assembly Drawing v2.pdf

8.01

7.8

24

20
3.88

15

5.89
6

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Estefania Castillo
Year: 2019-2020 Title: Upper Assembly Date: 12/30/2019 Units: in.

Figure 7: Nose cone, Payload Bay, and Transition Section Drawing

10
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 8: Nose cone, Payload Bay, and Transition Section

3.3.3 Transition Section

Because the launch vehicle has a variable diameter, the transition section must be designed
to prevent flow separation. This will reduce drag and decreases turbulent eddies, which could
impact altitude barometer readings. The transition section will have a fore diameter of 8 in.
and an aft diameter of 6.122 in. with a length of 5 in. The transition section will also house
an onboard camera in a built-in shroud designed specifically to hold it. The on-board camera
addition allows for visual data of the flight and ABS to be collected, fulfilling Team Derived
Requirement V.9. The transition section will be attached to a carbon fiber coupler using epoxy.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations were run in order to ensure that the
transition section angle was shallow enough to prevent flow separation. Simulations were run
using Ansys Fluent with a continuity residual convergence criterion of 10−3 . The simulation
took 430 iterations to converge. A transition SST model solved using a Second Order Upwind
method was used for turbulence modeling. The simulation was run with far field pressure
boundary conditions and air was modeled as an ideal gas. The Mach number tested was 0.31,
which is the average predicted Mach number during flight. A velocity profile produced by the
simulation is shown in Figure 9. As shown, the transition section produces effectively no flow
separation. There is a small amount of flow separation produced by the camera shroud, but
the flow reattaches within 5 in., which has little impact on the flight of the rocket, and will not
impact barometric pressure sensors.

11
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 9: Flow over transiton

Because the transition section is non-load bearing, material selection is very flexible. The
team has elected to 3D print it in-house, which allows for customization. The transition section
will be printed with Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) filament, which has higher impact
resistance and strength than other filament options available, such as PLA. Figure 10 shows the
designed transition section for the vehicle, and Figure 11 shows a rendering of the transition.

1.5

.9

8.01
6

2.5
5

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Estefania Castillo
Year: 2019-2020 Title: Transition Date: 12/30/2019 Units: in.

Figure 10: Transition Section Technical Drawing

12
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 11: 3D Printed Transition

3.3.4 Recovery Body Tube

The recovery tube houses the main parachute, the Compact Removable Avionics Module
(CRAM), and the drogue parachute. This section is located aft of the transition section and has
an outer diameter of 6.122 in. and a length of 36 in. The material selected for the recovery tube
is carbon fiber due to its durability and high strength-to-weight ratio. This section of the vehicle
is attached to the adjacent sections through carbon fiber couplers. The fore end of the recovery
tube is the in-flight separation point for the main parachute and the aft end of the section is
the in-flight separation point for the drogue parachute. Additionally, the CRAM is located 7 in.
from the bottom of this component. The recovery tube, along with its assembled components,
can be found in Figure 12

Figure 12: Assembled Recovery Body Tube

13
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3.3.5 Fin Can

The airframe of the fin can subsystem will also be carbon fiber due to its durability and high
strength-to-weight ratio, allowing for a maximum payload weight budget. The fin can will be
composed of a 44 in. long body tube, which will be 6.122 in. in diameter, and will house the fins,
motor mount, and ABS payload. The ABS payload will rest at the top of the fin can body tube so
that the tabs can be within 1 in. of the CP, per Team Derived Requirement V.14. Centering rings
will be used to attach the motor mount to the fin can, ensuring that the motor mount remains
centered inside the fin can. Additionally, the motor mount will be used as the attachment point
for the fins, which will be fabricated according to the specifications laid out in Section 3.3.6.
Figure 13 is a drawing of the fin can, and figure 14 shows the fin can assembly. Figure 15 is the
drawing for the fully assembled fin can.

Can Drawing v2.pdf

2.2

6.11
6

44
35.5
35

12
6

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Estefania Castillo
Year: 2019-2020 Title: Fin Can Date: 12/30/2019 Units: in.

Figure 13: Fin Can Component Drawing

14
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 14: Assembled Fin Can

Fin Can Drawing v2.pdf

6.112

6.0

12

20 21.44 24
6
13.33

3
1.5 4.44
3.11

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Estefania Castillo
Year: 2019-2020 Title: Assembled Fin Can Date: 12/30/2019 Units: in.

Figure 15: Assembled Fin Can Drawing

3.3.6 Fins

The material, shape, and attachment method were chosen so that the fins could withstand
the forces during launch, flight, and landing, while ensuring the stability of the launch vehicle.
The fins will be made from 1/8 in. G10 fiberglass because it is durable, commercially available,

15
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

and affordable. The fins will be an isosceles trapezoid platform shape, as it results in low drag
and is simple to construct. The launch vehicle will have 4 fins, evenly spaced around the base,
which creates a higher interface drag and allows for increased stability. An alignment ring used
successfully in previous years allows for symmetric attachment of the fins. The alignment ring
includes two circular plywood plates with laser-cut slots for the fins that are exactly 90 degrees
apart. Figure 16 shows this alignment mechanism. The fins are placed within the slots during
construction while the epoxy dries overnight to ensure perfect alignment. Table 8 gives the
properties of the fins. Figure 17 below shows the CAD drawing of the fin design and dimensions.

alignment rings Drawing v1.pdf

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: John McBride
Year: 2019-2020 Title: fin alignment rings Date: 1/10/20 Scale: 1:2

Figure 16: Fin Alignment Rings

The fins will be cut into the designed shape using a CNC router, and the leading and trailing
edges will be sanded to reduce drag. Epoxy fillets will be placed inside of the main body to
attach the fins onto the fin can. This will ensure the fins will remain perpendicular to the vehicle
through the duration of the flight.
Fin Flutter Velocity Calculation
In order to determine whether the fins can withstand the loads during ascent, the velocity at
which the fins would flutter was calculated in Equation 2. The fin flutter velocity was calculated
using conditions for maximum dynamic pressure, which occurs at burnout. The local speed of
sound was calculated at 580 ft, which is the highest simulated burnout altitude, and found to
be 1115.5 ft/s. Pressure was found to be 2092.5 lbf /ft2 , and a shear modulus of 5 GPa was used.
From these values, a fin flutter velocity of 800 ft/s was calculated. This value is 220 ft/s above the
greatest expected velocity, approximately 580 ft/s, ensuring the fins will not fail during ascent.

16
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 8

Dimension Value
Material Carbon Fiber
Planform Shape Isosceles Parallelogram
Root Chord Length 6.0 in
Tip Chord Length 30 in
Sweep Length 1.5 in
Sweep Angle 13◦
Tab Length 6 in
Tab Height 1.5 in
Thickness 0.125 in
Number of Fins 4

See Section 3.9 for Mission Performance Prediction details.

v
u
u G ³ b2 ´³ t ´3
V f = at 2
×2 +2 = 800 ft/s (2)
1.337( bS )3 P ( ccrt + 1) S cr

a Speed of Sound 1115.5 ft/s

G Fin Material Shear Modulus 5 GPa
b Fin Semi-span 0.542 (ft)
S Fin Area 0.203 (ft2 )
P Air Pressure at Max. Velocity 2092.5 (lbf /ft2 )
ct Fin Tip Chord 0.25 (ft)
cr Fin Root Chord 0.5 (ft)
t Fin Material Thickness 0.01 (ft)

3.4 Component Design

Sections 3.4.1-3.4.2 describe the various interior parts of the launch vehicle in depth,
discussing their purpose, positions, materials, and construction techniques.

3.4.1 Bulkheads

Bulkheads will separate the various sections of the vehicle, maintain the pressure isolation
of those sections, and mount components such as the parachute’s shock cord or electronics.
There are a total of seven bulkheads in the vehicle. Six bulkheads will be made out of G10

17
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Drawing v2.pdf

3
6

1.5

6.5 1.5
.13

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Estefania Castillo
Year: 2019-2020 Title: Fins Date: 12/30/2019 Units: in.

Figure 17: Fin Design and Dimensions

fiberglass. This decision was made based on FEA and historical experience and will be verified
with solid testing from January 15-24 (see Vehicle Timeline in Figure 141). The G10 fiberglass
bulkhead fore of the motor mount has a diameter of 6 in. and a thickness of 1/8 in. An
aluminum bulkhead at the fore end of ABS is 6 in. in diameter and has a thickness of 3/8 in.
Two G10 bulkheads keep the Compact Removable Avionics Module within the recovery tube
and distribute loads from parachute deployment. These bulkheads are 1/8 in. thick and have a
diameter of 6 in. (see Figures 66 and 67 for top and bottom bulkhead drawings, respectively).
The main parachute will be attached to a 3/16 in. thick G10 bulkhead that is 5.88 in. in
diameter. The fore payload bulkhead is used to eject the nose cone for Lunar Sample Retrieval
System deployment. This G10 bulkhead is 1/8 in. and 7.26 in. in diameter. The foremost
bulkhead in the launch vehicle is to protect telemetry from the black powder charge. This G10
bulkhead is 6.15 in. in diameter and is 1/8 in. thick.

3.4.2 Centering Rings

Centering rings will connect tubes of different diameters together: between the recovery
tube and payload bay, and between the motor mount and fin can. Around the motor mount,
the centering rings are also responsible for translating thrust from the motor mount to the rest
of the vehicle body. Figure 18 demonstrates how the motor mount will be held in place using
centering rings.

18
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 18: Centering Rings

The centering rings in the fin can will have an inner diameter of 3 in. an outer diameter of
6 in. and a thickness of 0.125 in. Centering rings will also be used to connect the nose cone to
the payload bay. The rings used in this part of the rocket will have an inner diameter of 6 in., an
outer diameter of 7.812 in., and a thickness of 0.125 in.
Although plywood is cheaper, the centering rings will be made out of fiberglass because it is
significantly stronger material and thus compensates for the higher costs.
G10 fiberglass centering rings securing the motor mount were analyzed under the
maximum motor load of 400 pounds. Figure 19 shows the results of this analysis. A minimum
FoS is 3.037 and hence safe.

Figure 19: FEA of Centering Rings in Motor Mount

19
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3.4.3 Motor Retention

The motor will be mounted into a carbon fiber tube which will be centered using centering
rings, shown in Section 3.4.2, and secured to the launch vehicle with a retaining ring attached
to the aft side of the motor mount.
The aluminum casing that will contain the launch vehicle motor is a Cesaroni 75mm 4-grain
hardware set. It has a length of 23.95 in. and an outer diameter of 2.965 in. It consists of thin-
wall 6061-T6 aluminum, and the forward closure is retained by a formed ring at the head end of
the casing. The rear casing has internal threads to hold it steady. Figure 20 shows an image of
the Cesaroni aluminum casing.

Figure 20: Cesaroni 75mm, 4g Aluminum Casing

The Cesaroni aluminum casing will be restricted in the rocket so that its radial center axis
is coincident with the launch vehicle’s radial center axis. This will be accomplished using three
fiberglass centering rings. The centering rings will have an outer diameter of 6 in., an inner
diameter of 2.965 in., and will be 1/8 in. thick. The aluminum casing will be attached to the
centering rings using JB Weld epoxy, due to its high heat tolerance, as discussed in section 3.5.3.
The launch vehicle motor itself is a Cesaroni 4-grain L1395 motor, which will be screwed
into the aluminum casing, and secured using retaining rings and closures. As these specific
parts were designed for the aluminum casing and for a motor of this size, NDRT did not find it
necessary to run FOS testing on these parts.

3.5 Material Analysis

In order to ensure that the vehicle airframe and its components would not fail under
expected loads, the team considered various properties in making material selection, such as
strength, density, availability, cost, among others.

20
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3.5.1 Airframe Components

Materials for the vehicle’s airframe were selected based on strength, cost, system-specific
requirements (such as radio transparency), along with other considerations. The nose cone and
transition section will be 3D printed using ASA plastic, which allows for customization. Since
each component only has to withstand the aerodynamic loads of flight, the strength of ASA is
sufficient.
The payload bay must be radio transparent so that payload components can communicate
with the team without interference. This requirement eliminates carbon fiber from
consideration. G12 Fiberglass is a suitable choice for this requirement as it is also relatively
durable.
All other sections of the airframe will be fabricated out of carbon fiber. This includes the
fin can, fins, recovery tube, and motor mount. Carbon fiber was selected for its durability and
strength to help fulfill NASA Requirement 2.4, which states that the launch vehicle be reusable
on the same day without repairs. A summary of these materials selections is provided in Table
9.

Table 9: Summary of Material Selection for Airframe Components

Subsystem Material Justification

Nose Cone ASA Plastic Customizable through student fabrication
Transition Section ASA Plastic Non-load bearing, light weight
Payload Bay Fiberglass Radio transparent, durable
Recovery Tube Carbon Fiber High strength-to-weight ratio
Fin Can Carbon Fiber Durable for load bearing
Fins Carbon Fiber Durable
Motor Mount Carbon Fiber Durable

3.5.2 Load Bearing Structures

Because the centering rings and bulkheads are load bearing, the team elected to conduct
solid testing on two bulkhead materials. The testing involved epoxying bulkheads into carbon
fiber couplers in the same way in which they would be secured into the vehicle. The bulkheads
were then put under a slow-loading force in order to calculate at what force they would fail. The
two materials available for bulkhead construction are fiberglass and plywood. Both options
been used in previous team projects and are strong, durable, and low cost. Plywood testing
procedures may be found in Test VT??? in Section ???, and future fiberglass testing procedures
may be found in Test VT??? in Section ???.
Solid testing with a load cell verifies the strength of those materials and also demonstrates
the strength of the epoxy used. The test completed on plywood revealed that bulkheads would
first start to fail at around 750 N, cracking and splintering, before the epoxy began to fail. In a few
of the tests, the epoxy itself was cracked, with a clean break between the coupler and bulkhead.

21
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Those trials, along with the data collected, show that a high quality epoxy connection between
the bulkhead and vehicle airframe is crucual to structural integrity. Figures 21 and 22 show the
procedure the team completed with plywood bulkheads.
The Compact Removable Avionics Module bulkheads will each experiencing a force of 320
lbs, and the payload section bulkhead will experience a force of 794 lbs. In other words, the
bulkhead material needs to withstand forces greater than 750 N (169 lbs). Thus, the team has
opted for Garolite G10 fiberglass bulkheads. Garolite G10 fiberglass its excellent impact
strength and good strength-to-weight ratio. FEA has demonstrated the material’s durability.
Nonetheless, solid testing next semester will verify this choice.

Figure 22: Plywood Failed Bulkhead

Figure 21: Load Cell Setup

3.5.3 Adhesives

In order to assemble the launch vehicle, Glenmark RocketPoxy and JB Weld Epoxy will be
used. Couplers, bulkheads and twist and lock mechanisms will be secured using a ring of
RocketPoxy which should cover the greatest amount of contact surface area between the
secured parts. For the motor mount, JB Weld will be used, as JB Weld has a maximum
temperature threshold of approximately 600°F and the components in the fin can will be the
ones exposed to the greatest temperatures. Every joint is filleted for added strength.

22
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3.6 Subscale Vehicle

A 2:5 scaled variable diameter launch vehicle was developed in order to determine the
stability of the proposed launch vehicle as well as to verify calculations for the apogee and the
drag coefficient. The most important considerations in designing the subscale vehicle were
that the geometry and stability remain consistent. If the subscale launch vehicle represents a
true scale model of the full-scale vehicle, the results of the subscale launch can be used to
reasonably predict full-scale performance. Figure 23 shows the variable diameter subscale
vehicle. Three successful flights of the subscale vehicle were performed.

Figure 23: View of the Subscale Vehicle

The subscale vehicle and the final launch vehicle differed significantly in material
selection. The body tube of the subscale vehicle consisted of Kraft Paper, the fins were made
from plywood, and the nose cone was made from poly-prolene plastic. These differences was
not considered significant, as the team focused on stability margin and geometry for subscale.
Differences in material do not affect flight dynamics as long as the stability margin remains the
same and the geometry resembles that of the full scale vehicle.
Sensors and altimeters were placed inside the subscale launch vehicle to record apogee,
velocity, and acceleration data from each subscale test flight. The G80 motor with a 7 s delay
deployed the Fruitychute CFC-24 parachute. Figure 24 shows the as-built subscale vehicle.

Figure 24: As-built Subscale Vehicle

23
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

The G80 motor was selected for the subscale as it has a total impulse of 136.6Ns, which was
sufficient to accelerate the subscale launch vehicle into a compressible flow regime. With this,
the team was able to verify performance of the ABS tabs and estimate average values of the
coefficient of drag for the full scale launch vehicle.

3.6.1 Scale Justification

The subscale vehicle was scaled to 40% of the full-scale vehicle in length, diameter, CG, and
CP. Scaling these variables allows for an accurate analysis of the stability of the full-scale vehicle.
The mass of the subscale vehicle was not scaled because its accuracy would not impact flight
dynamics. Table 10 shows the exact scaling factor that was used for the subscale vehicle. Actual
values are not an exact 2:5 scale due to material availability.

Table 10: Comparison Between 2:5 of Fullscale Vehicle and Actual Subscale Vehicle

Vehicle Property Exact 2:5 Scale Sub scale % Difference

Length (in.) 53.2 53.25 0.09%
Upper Diameter (in.) 3.2 3.1 3.13%
Lower Diameter (in.) 2.4 2.555 6.46%
Center of Gravity (in. from nose cone) 30.3 32.2 6.2%
Center of Pressure (in. from nose cone) 38.6 39.3 1.92%
Stability (cal) 2.62 2.26 13.7%

The most important factors that were tested in the subscale vehicle were the overall design
of the vehicle and the ABS. Flight profile data was collected on the flights with different
variations of ABS tab extension in order to verify that the tabs are effective in inducing drag.
The results from the flights can be seen in Section 3.6.3.

3.6.2 Subscale Testing

The team used the subscale launch vehicles for test flights and wind tunnel testing in order
to predict the performance of the full scale vehicle. The wind tunnel testing, shown in Figure
25, was performed in order to find a drag coefficient to use for full scale predictions as well as
to test how effective the ABS tabs are in inducing drag on the airframe.
The vehicle was tested in a 2 ft by 2 ft by 6 ft subsonic wind tunnel in Hessert Laboratory. A
schematic of the wind tunnel may be found in Figure 26.
Drag force was measured at various speeds with and without 40% scale tabs to represent
the tabs of the ABS. Since the wind tunnel was at a low speed, the boundary layer generated
was larger than the tabs’ width, hence, no reliable data was recorded for the ABS system. Figure
27 below shows the drag coefficient versus Reynolds number curve generated from the wind
tunnel results.

24
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 25: Wind tunnel testing November 11-12.

Figure 26: Wind tunnel diagram

Additionally, the team had three successful sub scale test launches which took place on
December 7. These demonstrate viability of the team’s design and ability for rapid reuse of the
launch vehicle. By comparison of Matlab models, OpenRocket, and subscale test launch
apogees, the team found that the vehicle’s drag coefficient lines up with the drag coefficient
found from the wind tunnel testing, and therefore can be reliably used for full-scale
simulations.

3.6.3 Subscale Results

The subscale vehicle was successfully launched three times on December 7th, 2019 in Three
Oaks, Michigan. It fulfilled its purpose of testing the launch vehicle design and construction
techniques, as well as providing data to verify the effects of the ABS tabs. The first launch had
no ABS tabs, the second had the tabs fully extended, and the third had tabs half extended.
Launch conditions stayed consistent over the three launches. The weather was cloudy with
a high of 39°F and a low of 32°F. At the time of the first launch, the temperature was 34°F with the

25
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 27: Drag Coefficient data from Wind Tunnel testing

wind coming from the south at 6 mph. During the second and third launches, the temperature
was 34°F with a south wind of 8 mph.

Table 11: Subscale Launch Condition

Launch Temperature Wind

1 34°F S at 6 mph
2 34°F S at 8 mph
3 34°F S at 8 mph

In between launches, there were a few tasks that had to be completed before the subscale
vehicle was ready for its next launch. This included refolding and repacking the parachute and
confirming its connection to the two sections of the vehicle that separate at apogee. The spent
motor had to be removed and replaced with a new motor, and the ABS section had to be
interchanged with one of the other two sections. The ABS sled with the various altimeters also
had to be removed and reset. The time between launches was around 20 min. This verified the
team’s ability to relaunch within the same day without repairs or modifications, per NASA
Requirement 2.4.
The predicted apogee for the subscale launch was 1,100 ft with the ABS tabs, and 1,256 ft
without them. These predictions were obtained via simulations run in OpenRocket and
RockSim. There were two altimeters on board the subscale vehicle: the Recovery squad’s
altimeter Raven and the ABS squad’s altimeter Stratologger. The subscale results are
summarized in Table 12

26
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 12: Subscale Test Flight Results

Launch Apogee (Raven) Apogee (Stratologger)

No Tabs 1367 ft 1365 ft
Full Tabs 1011 ft 1009 ft
Half Tabs 1127 ft 1126 ft

The results from the three subscale launches show that the ABS tabs were successful in
lowering the apogee of the vehicle. Both altimeters showed a 26% decrease in apogee from the
first launch to the second, and a 17.5% decrease from the first launch to the third. However,
some of the decrease in apogee from the first launch to the second was attributed to the
ignition cord, which did not detach until the subscale vehicle had nearly cleared the rail,
causing the vehicle to pitch and spiral, eventually stabilizing, and subsequently lowering the
apogee. The issue with the igniter cord was three-fold: the cap used to hold the igniter in place
was too tight, igniter wires were wrapped around the alligator clips to ensure a good
connection, and the cord was not wrapped around the launch pad. These issues will be
avoided in the full-scale launch because the ignition method will be entirely different. Despite
this error, the third launch with the half tabs also showed a significant decrease in apogee, so it
is reasonable to assume that the second launch’s lower apogee was caused both by the full tabs
and the pitch experienced on takeoff.

3.6.4 Flight Analysis

Figure 28 shows the altitude vs. time plots for the three subscale flights. Simulations were
run using a fourth order Runge-Kutta method approximating the forces on the launch vehicle
during flight. As shown, the simulations, which only differ in their approximated drag
coefficient for the launch vehicle, predict the flight path in all three cases. Noise in the altitude
data can be attributed to parachute deployment.
In addition, the simulated velocity was compared to the velocity of the subscale launch.
The velocity was calculated using a fourth order finite difference method on the altitude data.
A smoothing filter was then applied to the velocity data to account for noise produced by the
barometric sensor. Figure 29 shows the velocity data for the no tabs flight. As shown, the
simulation has a maximum error at burnout of 15%. This is due to the fact that the simulation
approximates the thrust as a constant force over the burn of the motor. However, the
simulation follows the trend of the flight well, and does not deviate from actual flight data by
more than 3% except at burnout. Again, noise in the data can be attributed to deployment and
parachute opening.
Additional simulations were run using OpenRocket. As shown in Figure 30, the altitude
predicted by OpenRocket is about 100 ft short of the actual apogee. This is due to difficulty
in modelling the actual viscous forces on the rocket in flight. This underestimation is noted for
future OpenRocket simulations.
The velocity profile predicted by OpenRocket was very similar to that predicted by the

27
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 28: Subscale launches compared to simulated flights

Runge-Kutta simulation and agreed well with the actual flight data, as shown in Figure 31.
Again, the maximum error of 13% occurred at burnout, possibly due to differences in the
modeled thrust curve and the thrust curve actually produced by the motor.

3.6.5 Full Scale Implications

The subscale test launches successfully demonstrated that the drag-inducing tabs can lower
the altitude of the launch vehicle. No vehicle design changes were made based on the results
of the subscale vehicle. Additionally, the sensors and altimeters flown on the subscale vehicle
were able to record data and are therefore viable choices for the full scale vehicle.

3.7 Air Braking System

In order to reach apogee at the target altitude of 4,444 ft, the launch vehicle will utilize an Air
Braking System (ABS), with the goal of inducing a controlled variable drag force during flight.
ABS will consist of an on-board closed-loop control system that simultaneously tracks flight
data and alters the extension of a set of four drag surfaces, called drag tabs. The drag tabs will
extend radially outward from the CP of the launch vehicle such that they act as flat plates normal
to the direction of airflow. For the duration of flight from burnout to apogee, the actuation

28
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 29: Subscale velocity compared to simulated flight

of these drag tabs will be altered according to a PID control algorithm, and they will remain
retracted for the remainder of the flight.

3.7.1 Mission Success Criteria

In a successful flight, ABS will bring the launch vehicle to the target apogee of 4,444 ft, within
an acceptable margin of error, in a manner that does not compromise safety or stability. To
verify that this objective is met, the following specific set of success criteria must be met:
ABS.MS.1 On-board sensor data shall indicate that the launch vehicle reaches apogee at an
altitude of 4,444 ± 25 ft.
ABS.MS.2 Actuation of the drag tabs shall be visually confirmed by footage from the onboard
camera.
ABS.MS.3 The drag tabs shall actuate at a location within ± 1 in. of the CP to ensure that they
do not significantly alter the static stability margin.
ABS.MS.4 The drag tabs shall extend simultaneously and symmetrically to ensure that no
destabilizing moments are generated.
ABS.MS.5 The drag tabs shall only actuate during flight from burnout to apogee, and shall
remain fully retracted for the remaining duration of flight.
ABS.MS.6 No components of the system shall experience structural failure at any stage of

29
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 30: OpenRocket simulation for subscale flight altitude

flight.

3.7.2 Mechanical Design

The CP of the launch vehicle is 2.75 in. aft of the forward end of the section in the fin can
allotted to ABS. At the forward side of the section sits a removable bulkhead that is screwed
into the launch vehicle body. Four threaded rods run through this removable bulkhead and
are mounted to it through a set of threaded holes. Nuts screwed onto each threaded rod on
either side of the bulkhead prevent them from moving. All components are supported by these
threaded rods with nuts on either side of the components, clamping them in place.
Aft of the removable bulkhead sits the drag tab deployment mechanism. This mechanism is
designed to deploy four drag tabs through slots cut in the launch vehicle body. Contained within
a deck with four slots cut into it sits a central hub and the four drag tabs. Four linkages connect
the central hub to the drag tabs allowing the rotation of the central hub to push the drag tabs out
through the slots in the fin can. At full extension the drag tabs will extend approximately 1 in.
out from the launch vehicle body in the radial direction. This deck is mounted to the threaded
rods using nuts allowing for its position to be adjustable, which will ensure that the drag tabs
align with the slots cut in the launch vehicle body.
The central hub is rotated by a Hitec D845WP servo motor mounted to a deck aft of the

30
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 31: OpenRocket simulation for subscale flight velocity

mechanism, which also sits on the threaded rods allowing for the height of the servo to be
adjusted. A LiPo battery to power this servo also sits on this deck within a 3D printed box,
epoxied to the deck. The central hub from the mechanism runs through the center of the
slotted deck and connects directly to the servo head.
A third deck sits aft of the servo deck, which is also supported by the threaded rods.
Connected to this deck sit two vertical HDPE walls that hold the remaining electronics, namely
a LiPo battery (within another 3D printed box), a Rasberry pi, BNO055 ccelerometer, and
MPL3115A2 barometer, and an ADXL345 accelerometer are all mounted and connected to
these plates.
At the aft-side of the ABS is a plywood deck, which rests on the fiberglass bulkhead epoxied
into the launch vehicle body to separate the ABS from the launch vehicle motor. This deck
ensures that the threaded rods do not bend or twist, causing the tabs to come out of alignment.
A dowel rod runs the length of the section adhered to the launch vehicle body. Slots are placed
in each deck to the system to slide onto the dowel rod, thus ensuring that all decks and the
components attached to them are aligned as intended. A CAD model of the entire system is
shown in Figure 3.7.6, and the dimensions of the system are shown in Figure 33.

3.7.2.1 System Integration

31
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 32: Model of ABS within a section of the fin can

ABS must be integrated into the fin can of the launch vehicle in such a way that it can be
easily inserted and removed to make modifications and preparations before and between
flights. To make this feasible while ensuring that the system is aligned properly to the slots in
the fin can, all decks of the system will be attached to four threaded rods that run down the
length of the ABS section of the fin can. The decks will each be secured in their respective
locations on the threaded rods by toothed locknuts, which will ensure that vibrations do not
cause components to come loose. The rods will be inserted into threaded holes in the
aluminum removable bulkhead at the fore end of the ABS section, as well as threaded holes in
the plywood deck at the aft end. This will allow for the entire system to be removed in one
piece when the fore removable bulkhead is unscrewed. To ensure alignment of the drag tabs
with the fin can slots in the radial direction, the system will slide up and down a dowel rod that
runs the length of the inner wall of the ABS section of the fin can.
The 3/8 in. thick aluminum removable bulkhead will be included fore of the ABS as a strong

32
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 33: Technical Drawing of Full ABS with Dimensions

structural component that simultaneously enables access to ABS. This bulkhead attaches to
the launch vehicle body using four machine screws that go through small holes in the body of
the launch vehicle and into threaded holes in the bulkhead. These screws are easily removable,
allowing for ABS to be pulled from the launch vehicle body for modifications, data collection,
and battery replacement. The bulkhead also supports the parachute shock-chord for the
Recovery subsystem. The need to support both crucial systems necessitated the use of exterior
mounting screws and the material choice of aluminum. The bulkhead will be cut to a slip-fit
within the fin can to ensure that it is centered within it, ensuring that all parts mounted to it
are symmetric about the central axis of the launch vehicle. The in-house machining of the
bulkhead will also ensure that the threaded rods that hold the entirety of the ABS are parallel
with the length of the launch vehicle and symmetric about its central axis.
The drag tabs must be positioned so that the flow separation induced by the drag tabs does
not interfere with the flow over the fins or the avionics bay bleed hole. To achieve this, the tabs
will be placed at 45°angles relative to the fins. For repeatable and easy alignment of the tabs
with their slots in the fin can, a dowel will be epoxied to the inner side of the launch vehicle.
Each deck of the ABS bay will have a small notch cut into it, so that they can easily slide down
the dowel rod, ensuring proper axial orientation. This dowel positioning system is shown in
Figure 34.

33
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 34: Dowel rod for drag tab orientation

3.7.2.2 Component Integration

All electrical components of the system will need to be secured to the HDPE decks and walls
such that they will withstand the forces and vibrations experienced during flight. Conveniently,
the PCB holding the microcontroller and sensors, and the servo motor both include holes that
provide the ability to easily screw them into threaded holes in the HDPE. For this, 10-32 nylon
screws and lock nuts will secure each component to the HDPE. Unfortunately, the batteries do
not provide convenient means of integration as part of their structures, so custom battery boxes
will be 3D printed out of ABS plastic, and will be epoxied to the HDPE to secure the batteries
in place. Each of these will include a snap-lock lid, and a hole to allow the wires to reach the
necessary electronics.

3.7.3 Fabrication

Aside from the shoulder screws and the ball bearing, the team has decided to fabricate the
remaining mechanism components in-house to provide control over dimensions and
tolerancing. The drag tabs and the slotted deck for the drag tabs will both be machined out of
sheets of Nylon 6/6 using Techno Mill CNC cutters available through the Notre Dame Student
Fabrication Lab. Similarly, the decks and walls that provide housing for all electronics in the
system will be machined out of sheets of HDPE that are available from previous years, as this
material has proven reliable for such structures. Finally, the central hub and linkage
components of the mechanism will be machined out of aluminum 6061 to ensure they meet
the required strength. These components will also be fabricated using the Techno Router to
ensure tight tolerances in the mechanism.

34
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3.7.3.1 Drag Tab Design

When fully retracted, the tabs are designed to sit flush with the outer casing of the system,
which places a space constraint on them. The area of each drag tab exposed to airflow at
maximum extension is 2.055 in.2 , which was the maximum that could be achieved using four
tabs and the inner diameter of the fin can. This area was proven sufficient by flight
simulations, as outlined in depth in the PID section. The final design and dimensions of the
tabs are shown in Figure 35.

Figure 35: Technical Drawing of Drag Tabs

The dynamic force balance on the launch vehicle during vertical flight with drag tabs
deployed is shown in Equation 3. Taking the drag equation, shown in Equation 4, and
substituting it for the drag forces, and taking into account the flight angle of the launch vehicle
with respect to the vertical, yields the equation of motion of the launch vehicle, as shown in
Equation 5.

m ÿ = −F d r ag ,r ocket − F d r ag ,t abs − mg (3)

1
F d r ag = C d ρ A ẏ 2 (4)
2

¢³ ρ ´
ẏ 2 + g = 0
¡
ÿ + C d ,t abs A t abs +C d ,r ocket A r ocket (5)
2m cos θ

35
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

m Mass of Vehicle (lbm )

ÿ Vertical Acceleration (ft/s)
F d r ag ,r ocket Drag Force on Launch Vehicle (lbf )
F d r ag ,t abs Drag Force on Drag Tabs (lbf )
Cd Drag Coefficient
ρ Fluid Density (slug/ft3 )
A Incident Area (ft2 )
ẏ Vertical Velocity (ft/s)
θ Angle of Launch Vehicle WRT Vertical (degrees)

Since the equation of motion is a non-linear second order differential equation, it needed to
be solved numerically, which was done for flight simulations using the code shown in Appendix
B.3. Full deployment of the tabs will not be necessary throughout the time period when the
air braking system is active, as verified by the flight simulations in the PID section. Instead, the
design requires a control system to adjust the drag tab extension as necessary, thereby adjusting
the resultant drag force.
The team selected Slippery MDS-Filled Wear-Resistant Nylon 6/6 sheeting for the drag tabs
and the slotted deck they sit within. Nylon 6/6 was chosen for its low coefficient of friction, as
it is more slippery than regular Nylon and self-lubricating, so that the friction between the drag
tabs and their slots is minimized to avoid stalling the servo motor. The coefficient of friction
will be further lowered with the aid of Krytox, an industrial lubricant. Nylon 6/6 also provides a
high yield stress and low cost compared to plastics with similar properties. For reference, Table
13 lists the material properties of Nylon 6/6.

Table 13: Material Properties of Nylon 6/6

Cost at 1/4 in. Thick Yield Stress Density Coefficient of

($/ft2 ) (psi) (g/cm3 ) Friction
30.31 11750 1.135 0.26

The team will purchase the Nylon in 1/4 in. thick sheets, because this is the desired thickness
of the fabricated drag tabs, so that the coefficient of friction of the faces of the tabs can be
retained at the factory value.

3.7.3.2 Drag Tab Analysis

To estimate the force exerted by the drag tabs on the launch vehicle, Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) simulations were performed using Ansys Fluent T M . A volume mesh of the
launch vehicle was created in Pointwise T M . The Fluent simulations were run using far field
pressure boundary conditions with Mach numbers 0.52, 0.3, and 0.042. The simulations were

36
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

run for 1000 iterations with a continuity residual convergence criteria of 10−3 . The CFD
simulation was configured under the parameters presented in Table 14.

Table 14: CFD Simulation Parameters

CFD Parameter Value

Axial Mach number 0.52, 0.3, 0.042
Angle of attack (°) 0
Far field static pressure (kPa) 101.3
Fluid temperature (K) 280

For both Mach numbers simulated, the maximum pressure on 90% of the drag tab surface
is 98.7% of the total (stagnation) freestream pressure. The minimum absolute pressure on the
tabs, however, varied based on the Mach number and was 66.7% of the freestream total pressure
for the Mach 0.52 case and 94.4% of the freestream total pressure for the Mach 0.3 case. A curve
fit based on the simulation provides an estimate for the drag on the tabs at any Mach number
as expressed in Equation 6.

¶ γ
γ − 1 2 γ−1 £
µ
1 − (1 − M 2 )3/2
¤
F d r ag ,t abs = P s A 1 + M (6)
2

F d r ag ,t abs Net Force on Drag Tabs (lbf )

M Freestream Mach Number
Ps Freestream Static Pressure (Pa)
γ Ratio of Specific Heats

Since the average Mach number during flight as estimated by OpenRocket is 0.31 (Section
3.9), the average coefficient of drag for the tabs was estimated to be 2.06 based on the CFD
results. This is higher than the standard 1.28 coefficient of drag for a flat plate perpendicular to
flow, but this is expected due to compressibility effects. Figure 36 shows the pressure
distribution on the forward face of the drag tabs for a Mach 0.3 simulation.

37
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 36: Pressure Profile on Drag Tabs for Mach Number 0.3

A highly incompressible simulation (Mach number 0.042) was run in order to compare
simulation results with wind tunnel tests. Again, the continuity residual convergence criteria
was 10−3 and the simulation was run for 1000 iterations. For these slower speeds, a wake
develops after the transition section, which reduces the drag force on the tabs. The
incompressible simulation estimated the pressure on the forward faces of the drag tabs to be
only 64.29% of the stagnation pressure of the freestream flow, substantially less than that at
higher Mach numbers. This leads to a drastically reduced force on the drag tabs, such that it
would not have been able to be resolved by the force gauge in wind tunnel tests, which
explains why the tests did not show any added force when the drag tab models were added, as
discussed in the test results section. Figure 37 shows the velocity profile over the launch
vehicle for the incompressible simulation. The wake produced by the transition section is
shown as the lower velocity section of the flow. It is substantially more prominent coming off
the camera shroud on the transition section.

Figure 37: Velocity Profile for Incompressible Simulation

In order to ensure the structural integrity of the drag tabs during flight, a static FEA was
performed on the CAD model of one drag tab using Ansys StructuralTM . The boundary
conditions applied model the conditions experienced by a drag tab that is fully deployed at
burnout, when the velocity of the launch vehicle is highest, as this is the moment when the
drag tabs are expected to experience the highest stress due to drag. More specifically, the

38
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

model included a pressure force acting on the portion of the face of the drag tab that will
extend from the body of the launch vehicle with a magnitude of 3.55 psi, the pressure at the
maximum expected velocity of approximately 580 ft/s (see Section 3.9). A cylindrical support
was applied to the interior of the pin hole, fixing its walls in the tangential direction to model
the constraint of a shoulder screw. Additionally, frictionless supports, constraining the walls
from moving in the normal direction, were applied to the side walls where they will contact the
insides of the mechanism slots, and another frictionless support was applied to a portion of
the surface above the pin hole to model the normal reaction force from the mechanism
linkage. The boundary conditions described are shown in Figure 38. The analysis settings were
set to measure von-Mises stress and total deformation, and the assigned material was Nylon
6/6. The analysis was run for three mesh refinement levels to ensure that the results
converged. The final results are shown in Figure 39 and Figure 40. Given that the maximum
stress predicted by the analysis was 3920.4 psi and the tensile strength of Nylon 6/6 is 11,750
psi, yielded a factor of safety of 3.00 for the drag tabs.

Figure 38: Boundary conditions for drag tab FEA

Figure 39: FEA- Max. von Mises Stress for Drag Figure 40: FEA- Deformation of Drag Tabs
Tabs

3.7.3.3 Mechanism Components

The mechanism that will deploy the drag tabs from the fin can converts rotation of a central
hub via a servo motor to the linear motion of the drag tabs, which sit in grooves that guide them
linearly outward through slots in the launch vehicle body. Four linkages connect a central hub,
which is attached to the servo motor, to the drag tabs such that rotation of the servo motor
straightens the linkages to actuate the drag tabs. The slots that the drag tabs move within are
cut into a Nylon deck, which provides the structure for the mechanism. This slotted deck is

39
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

secured to four threaded rods that run through it, with nuts and washers to prevent movement,
while allowing the deck position to be adjusted so that the drag tabs can be easily lined up with
the holes cut in the launch vehicle body. The motion provided by the mechanism can be seen
in Figure 41, where the tabs are fully retracted on the left, and partially deployed on the right.
For visibility, the drag tabs are shown in red, the linkages in yellow, the central hub in green, and
a section of the launch vehicle body is in blue.

Figure 41: Motion of ABS mechanism

To ensure tight tolerances are achieved, the central hub and linkages will all be machined out
of aluminum. The holes in the central hub and linkages will both be cut to slip fit to minimize
the friction during movement. The pins will be ultra-low profile precision shoulder screws. This
will allow them to sit within counterbored holes in the bottoms of the drag tabs and central hub
arms, as to prevent them from interfering with the slotted deck. A dimensioned drawing of the
central hub is shown in Figure 42, and the linkage is shown in Figure 43, both of which are to be
fabricated out of aluminum.

40
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 42: Central hub component of ABS mechanism

Figure 43: Linkage component of ABS mechanism

The central hub will be attached directly to the servo head via four low profile socket head
screws. The servo sits below the mechanism, mounted to a HDPE deck. This deck will have a
completely adjustable height as it is mounted to the threaded rods running the length of the
ABS. These bolts can be adjusted to ensure that the servo does not push or pull excessively on
the central hub. The central hub will run through a ball bearing that is press fit and glued into
the mechanism deck. This ball bearing will ensure that the central hub is perfectly centered and
will rotate on only one axis without added friction. The friction created between the drag tabs

41
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

and the sides of the slots that they run in must not stall the motor. The maximum amount of
torque required by the servo occurs when the tabs are fully retracted and the servo first starts to
turn, so a static analysis was performed to ensure that the servo motor can overcome the torque
at this point, yielding Equation 7 for the angle at which the linkage will cause the servo motor
to stall. µ ¶
−1 1
θmax = tan = 75.96° (7)
µst at i c

µst at i c Coefficient of Static Friction of Nylon 6/6

θmax Max. Angle of Drag Tab Movement

At this maximum angle, the force from the servo motor on the linkage will equal the
opposing friction force, and no movement will occur, thus stalling the servo motor. Therefore,
the maximum angle the linkage may make with the axis of drag tab motion is 75.96°, and all
angles smaller than this will yield movement of the drag tabs. The mechanism design uses a
maximum linkage angle of 63.0°, so the current configuration will not stall the servo motor.
Since the mechanism converts the rotational motion of the servo motor into the linear
motion of the tabs, a mechanical analysis was performed on the design to determine the
relation between rotation angle and linear displacement. This was done by treating the
mechanism as a three-bar linkage with shaft rotation as the input, and Newton’s method was
applied to generate a plot of linear displacement as a function of shaft angle. Additionally, a
motion analysis of the mechanism CAD model was performed to verify the result, and both are
shown plotted in Figure 44. The similarity between the two plots verifies that the correct
relation between servo angle and linear displacement for the mechanism design has been
obtained. For use in the control software, a third-degree polynomial fit on the result of the
Newton’s method analysis produced Equation 8. The fully retracted state is at φ = 0.

x = (−9.16 × 10−7 )φ3 − (1.66 × 10−4 )φ2 + 0.0317φ − 0.00131 (8)

x Linear Displacement (in.)

φ Servo Motor Rotation Angle (°)

3.7.4 Electrical Design

3.7.4.1 Sensors

Two accelerometers will serve to extrapolate the velocity of the rocket using the Kalman
filter, determine when the launch vehicle has entered a new stage in the launch cycle, and
track absolute orientation. The team decided to use both the Adafruit BNO055, which will
provide orientation data in the form of Euler angles, and the ADXL345, which will provide
triple-axis linear acceleration (without gravity) and acceleration with gravity. The BNO055 is
the only commercially available accelerometer that provides 3-axis orientation data, but this
mode restricts its acceleration range to 4 g’s, which is insufficient to track linear acceleration.

42
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 44: Drag Tab Extension vs. Servo Motor Rotation

This led to the decision to include the ADXL345, which will provide linear acceleration data
within a lower error range than a second BNO055 could. Refer to Table 15 for the specifications
on the BNO055, and Table 16 for the specifications on the ADXL345.

Table 15: BNO055 Accelerometer Technical Specifications

Specification Value
Output frequency (Hz) 100
Acceleration range (g’s) 2 - 16
Supply voltage range (V) 2.4 - 3.6
Average supply current (mA) 12.3
Weight (oz) 0.1058
Dimensions (in.) 0.8 x 1.1 x 0.2

43
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 16: ADXL345 Accelerometer Technical Specifications

Specification Value
Output frequency (Hz) 800
Acceleration range (g’s) 2 - 16
Supply voltage range (V) 2.0 - 3.6
Supply current range (µA) 30 - 140
Weight (oz) 0.0448
Dimensions (in.) 0.95 x 0.75 x 0.12

The team is choosing the BNO055 for the primary accelerometer for a variety of reasons.
This sensor provides data at 100 Hz, which will provide enough samples for the system to alter
the drag if necessary, and it provides more than just 3-axis acceleration. This sensor provides
useful information such as orientation, linear acceleration (without gravity), and acceleration
with gravity. These values are going to be critical in the algorithms that are going to be used in
ABS, and the BNO055 is a well respected inertial measurement unit reasonably priced within
the team budget allowance. It is possible to calculate some of these values by utilizing a 3-axis
accelerometer and calibrating it with respect to gravitational acceleration, but the team
decided that it would be much more efficient and reliable to find a sensor that can present
absolute orientation as raw data, as orientation is critical for predicting the motion of the
launch vehicle. This accelerometer is also highly programmable, and different sensors can be
activated/deactivated if necessary. These different metrics can be used to improve the systems
accuracy, and all of these data points are provided at 100 Hz.
The team decided to use the MPL3115A2 - I2C as the barometer in order to determine the
altitude of the rocket. It was chosen for its comparatively low margin of error on pressure
readings, low cost, and high output frequency. Table 17 shows the specifications of the
MPL3115A2.

Table 17: MPL3115A2 Barometer Technical Specifications

Specification Value
Pressure measurement range (kPa) 50 - 110
Pressure accuracy (Pa) ± 1.5
Output frequency (kHz) 400
Weight (oz) 0.0423

3.7.4.2 Servo Motor

The ABS mechanism is going to be driven by the HiTec D845WP servo motor. This servo
motor was chosen for its high torque capability to ensure that it can overcome the friction

44
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

forces that will occur within the mechanism. Additionally, this servo utilizes an internal
feedback potentiometer to verify that it has rotated to the correct angle. In order to provide
this high torque, it has a very large current draw and is relatively heavy, but these drawbacks
were deemed acceptable considering the benefits. The specifications for the D845WP can be
seen in Table 18. To account for the high current draw of this motor, a switch will be

Table 18: D845WP Servo Motor Technical Specifications

Specification Value
Weight (oz) 8
Rotation speed .17 sec/60°
Torque (oz-in) 694
Cost $100
Maximum rotation angle 202.5°
Idle current draw (mA) 30
Operating current draw (A) 1.6
Operating voltage range (V) 4.8 - 8.4

implemented in the servo circuit to ensure that no unnecessary current will be drawn from the
7.4 V LiPo Battery. This switch will not be activated until the vehicle is on the launch pad. An
advantage of the D845WP is that it is highly programmable. The team will be able to adjust
many aspects of the servo’s function prior to launch, such as the travel range. In the table
above, the maximum travel range is shown to be 202.5°, which is much too wide for practical
application in the system. The team will be able to lessen the maximum range to 63.0°, which
will allow for more precise movement of the servo and prevent it from extending too far. This
programming will be done through the DPC-11 servo programmer, which will allow the team
to interface a PC directly with the motor. In flight, the servo is going to be directly controlled by
the Raspberry Pi. One of the Pi’s GPIO pins will output a PWM signal to the center pin of the
servo, which will alter the angular position of the motor, resulting in the actuation of the drag
tabs. The circuit that the servo motor will be using is shown in Figure 45.

3.7.4.3 Microcontroller

To integrate all of the sensors and actuators in ABS, the team will be using a Raspberry Pi
Zero. The Raspberry Pi Zero provides the power necessary for the system’s data processing
algorithms while being small and light enough to fit properly in the ABS. The specifications of
the Raspberry Pi can be seen in Table 19. The Raspberry Pi Zero is highly versatile: it is a
miniature computer, running on an altered version of Linux called Raspbian. This makes data
storage much easier, because rather than needing to write to an external SD card, the program
can save the flight data as a file on the Pi itself. There are Python packages that can be
downloaded onto the Pi that are specifically designed to interface with the Adafruit sensors
that will be used in the system, making data collection very simple and straightforward. The Pi

45
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 45: Servo motor circuit schematic

Table 19: Raspberry Pi Zero technical specifications

Specification Value
System Clock (GHz) 1
RAM (MB) 512
Number of pins 40
Micro USB Supply Voltage (V) 5

can also output PWM signals that will be used to control the servo. Two different hardware
techniques will be used to connect the sensors to the microcontroller: I2C and UART. I2C
utilizes two buses, SDA and SCL, to connect up to 128 sensors to the microcontroller through
the use of a Master/Slave communication protocol. SDA is the data bus and SCL is the I2C
clock. Both the MPL3115A2 and the BNO055 being utilized for raw acceleration data are going
to be connected to the Raspberry Pi in this way; in subscale, sampling rates of over 50 Hz were
attained.
For full-scale, the BNO needs to be connected in a different way. When being used to collect
absolute orientation data the BNO055 needs to integrate data taken from several of its sensors,
which results in a slower sampling rate. In order to function properly on the I2C bus, the SCL
clock would need to be slowed down by a factor of 10. This was not deemed acceptable, and
ended up slowing down sampling rates by a significant margin. In order to avoid this issue,
this BNO055 is going to be connected to the Pi through the use of the UART serial protocol.
UART allows for two devices to communicate with each other directly. This configuration was
designed to maximize the sampling rate, which is crucial to the success of ABS. The wiring can
be seen more clearly in the Section 3.7.4.4.

3.7.4.4 Printed Circuit Board

In order to optimize the hardware of the system, the ABS is going to utilize a printed circuit
board (PCB). This PCB was designed using KiCAD, and will allow for all of the electrical

46
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

components of the system to be connected to each other with ease. Figure 46 shows the
schematic of the system, and Figures 47 and 48 show the PCB that will be printed from this
schematic. The PS0 pin on the UART BNO055 will need to be connected to the 3.3 V pin via a
wire (not included on the PCB Schematic).

Figure 46: ABS Electronics Wiring Schematic

Figure 48: CAD Model of PCB

Figure 47: PCB Schematic

3.7.4.5 Batteries

The team has chosen a 450 mAh 3.7 V YDL LiPo battery to power the Raspberry Pi, and a
350 mAh 7.4 V CBB LiPo battery to power the servo motor. Neither of these batteries needs to
have a very large capacity, as the Raspberry Pi has a low current draw, and the servo motor will
only need to be operating at its maximum current draw for a very short duration during flight.
The idle current of the servo motor is 30 mA, the operating current of the servo motor is 1.6

47
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

A, and the stall current is 10 A. If the servo is only operating after burnout and the flight time
is approximately 20 s, then the servo will drain a maximum of 56 mAh from the battery if the
motor is stalled the entire time, which is the worst-case scenario. This would leave 294 mAh
for the servo while idle, which provides 10 hours of life, significantly more than the required 2
hours. The Raspberry Pi Zero draws an average current of 100 mA, and each GPIO pin can draw
an additional 16 mA of current. Assuming that 5 pins are drawing this maximum current, the
Raspberry Pi will be able to function for 2.5 hours, which also exceeds the required 2 hours.
In order to power the Raspberry Pi with a 3.7 V battery, a power booster will be implemented.
The Raspberry Pi requires a consistent 5V, 100 mA power supply, and will reboot itself if this
supply varies. In order to ensure this does not occur in flight, the team purchased an Adafruit
PowerBoost 500 to directly convert the power supplied from the battery.

3.7.5 Control Structure

The ABS control code first activates on the launchpad through the flipping of the power
switch, giving visual confirmation through LED status lights that it is acquiring sensor data.
The system will be able to write to an SD card in order to provide detailed logs of the flight data
and filtered outputs. This connection to an SD card will also be indicated by an LED. Upon
activation of the arming switch, a third LED will indicate that the system is armed. Sensor data
will then be collected continuously after passing through a Kalman filter. The system then
waits to detect when liftoff has occurred, as indicated by the spike in acceleration. Once in this
stage, the system will use filtered data to determine when burnout has occurred. Once
burnout is detected, the filtered data will be read into a proportional-integral-derivative (PID)
control algorithm to determine the optimal drag tab extension length. During this stage, the
system will act as a closed-loop controller, continuously recalculating a new drag tab extension
and communicating it to the servo motor. This process terminates when sensor data indicates
that the launch vehicle has reached apogee, as indicated by a change to negative velocity, at
which point the drag tabs will retract for the remainder of the flight. A flow chart of the ABS
control structure is shown in Figure 49, and a description of each stage of the control cycle is
given in Table 20.

48
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 49: ABS Control Structure

Table 20: Control Stages

Stage Description
When the external switch for sensors is activated, turn on the armed confirmation
Armed LED, the module changes to Armed, starts to read data from sensors and runs the
filtering module.
When either the acceleration is greater than the threshold acceleration for a lift-off
Liftoff or the altitude is greater than the threshold altitude, the module changes from
Armed to Liftoff.
When the acceleration is smaller than the threshold acceleration for Burnout, the
Burnout module changes from Liftoff to Burnout module and the PID control algorithm is
run.
When the altitude is greater than the threshold altitude for the designated height
Apogee of apogee, the module changes from Burnout to Apogee and the PID control
module is stopped.
When the altitude is smaller than the designated altitude, or the velocity is smaller
Landed
than the threshold, the module changes from Apogee to Landed.

3.7.5.1 Data Filtering

One important stage of the control flow is data filtering. The goal of this stage is to combine
data from each different sensor into reliable altitude and velocity data. In designing the ideal
filter, the team has decided to implement a Kalman filter. The Kalman filter maintains an
internal state of the system which combines sensor data with a physical model describing how

49
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

the system is expected to evolve over time. The algorithm has two broad steps: a prediction
step and an update step, and a system of matrices go into the definition of these steps. The X
vector stores the internal state, Z stores the sensor data, Φ projects the state forward, H
translates from state to sensor data, Q stores the state covariance, R stores the measurement
covariance, P stores the error covariance, and K is the Kalman gain. These matrices combine
to form Equations 9-13:
X̂ k(−) = Φk−1(+) (9)
£ ¤
X̂ k(+) = X̂ k(−) + K k Zk − Hk X̂ k(−) (10)
P k(−) = Φk−1 P k−1(+) ΦTk−1 +Q k−1 (11)
P k(+) = [I − K k Hk ] P k(−) (12)
¤−1
K k = P k(−) HkT Hk P k(−) HkT + R k
£
(13)

X̂ Stores Internal State

Z Stores Sensor Data
Φ Projects State Forward
H Translates from State to Sensor Data
Q Stores the Covariance
R Stores the Measurement Covariance
P Error Covariance
K Kalman Gain

The specific construction of these matrices determines how the filter operates. The standard
Kalman filter only works for linear systems, so several simplifying assumptions have to be made.
In constructing the state transition matrix Φ, the team will use Kinematic Equations 14-16.

a t +∆t = a t (14)
v t +∆t = v t + a t ∆t (15)
∆t 2
y t +∆t = y t + v t ∆t + a t (16)
2

a Acceleration (ft/s2
v Velocity (ft/s)
y Position (ft)
∆t Time (s)

This is a very basic kinematic model that assumes no drag. However, it provides a good
model and removes noise from the position and velocity estimates explicitly, and it factors in
all of the relevant information. While a rough approximation to vertical acceleration can be

50
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

taken by only considering one of the three axes of acceleration, a better estimate can be
obtained using the absolute orientation data gathered from the BNO055 to construct a
rotation matrix, which transforms from the reference frame of the launch vehicle to an inertial
frame, and multiplying the ADXL acceleration by that matrix, which is shown in Equation 17.
 
c(ψ)c(θ) c(ψ)s(φ)s(θ) − c(φ)s(ψ) s(φ)s(ψ) + c(φ)c(ψ)s(θ)
R IB (φ, θ, ψ) = 
 
c(θ)s(ψ) c(φ)c(ψ) + s(φ)s(ψ)s(θ) c(φ)s(ψ)s(θ) − c(ψ)s(φ)
 (17)
−s(θ) c(θ)s(φ) c(φ)c(θ)

Where φ is roll, θ is pitch, and ψ is yaw. The team combined these steps into a Python script,
found in Appendix B.1, which implements the Kalman filter and the data transformation. Figure
50 shows the output of this program when applied to the sub-scale launch data.

Figure 50: Kalman Filter Applied to Sub-scale Flight Data

This model is powerful for its relative speed and robustness, along with its ability to provide
both position and velocity to the PID control algorithm. While the equations do not account for
drag, it will not be completely ignored, as the sensor data will inevitably show its effects.

3.7.5.2 PID Algorithm

After the system has detected burnout, the actuation of the drag tabs will be actively
controlled by a PID algorithm until apogee is detected. The algorithm alters the rotation angle
of the servo motor, thus adjusting the extension of the drag tabs as governed by the previously
derived Equation 8. To serve as an input, an ideal flight path was generated by combining
simulation data from OpenRocket for liftoff to burnout with a flight simulation from burnout
to apogee generated using MATLAB. The MATLAB generated flight path numerically solves the
derived equation of motion for the rocket, Equation 5 using 4th Order Runge-Kutta for a
second order differential equation, and can be seen in Appendix B.3. The drag coefficient for
the ideal flight was adjusted until the launch vehicle reached the target apogee of 4,444 ft. In
the algorithm, the altitude and velocity data from this ideal flight are compared to the
real-time altitude and velocity of the launch vehicle as indicated by the sensor data after being
passed through the Kalman filter, which is then used to determine an ideal servo motor

51
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

rotation angle. The resulting closed-loop process carried out by the control system from
burnout to apogee is shown in the diagram in Figure 51.

Figure 51: Control Flow Algorithm from Burnout to Apogee

For each altitude after burnout, the PID algorithm actively calculates error as the difference
between the measured velocity of the launch vehicle and the ideal velocity from the simulated
flight path, and estimates derivative error using the first order backward finite difference
method, as well as integral error using a Riemann sum. Using these inputs, it then outputs a
new angle of rotation for the servo motor according to the PID control law, shown in Equation
18.
de
Z
φ(e) = kPe + kD + k I (e)d t (18)
dt

φ Angle of Rotation of Servo Motor (°)

e Error
kP Proportional Gain
kD Derivative Gain
kI Integral Gain

The algorithm includes constraints that ensure that φ does not exceed the 63°maximum
rotation angle allowed by the mechanism, or the maximum rotation speed of the servo motor,
352.9 °/s. In order to choose values for the gains, the algorithm was tested in MATLAB by
simulating flights of the launch vehicle, for a launch angle of 10°and a wind speed of 0 mph. A
reasonable set of gain values was found to be kP = 2, kD = 0.5, and kI = 0.05, but these will be
verified during control algorithm ground testing before a full-scale flight is attempted. For
comparison, simulated flights were also generated for tabs at full extension and without drag
tab actuation. The results of the simulated flights are shown in Figure 52.

52
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 52: Simulated flight paths verifying the PID control algorithm

The entire functional PID algorithm can be seen in Appendix B.2-B.4.

3.7.6 Sub-scale Results

The team completed a successful sub-scale flight test on December 7, 2019. The launch
vehicle flew three times, first with no drag tabs, then with the tabs at full extension, and finally
with the tabs at half extension. Table 21 shows the altitude recorded at each apogee by the
onboard MPL3115A2.

Table 21: Average Altitude at Apogee

Flight No Tabs Half Tabs Full Tabs

Altitude (ft) 1366 1126.5 1010

The trend of the data verifies that the drag tabs effectively lower the apogee of the launch
vehicle. The team was also able to complete a series of wind tunnel testing with no drag tabs,
drag tabs at half extension, and drag tabs at full extension in one of the subsonic wind tunnels
at Notre Dame’s Hessert Laboratory. The wind tunnel could only produce wind speeds of up to
115 ft/s, which is far lower than the maximum expected in-flight velocity. The relevant
dimensionless quantity for wind tunnel testing is the Reynolds Number, shown in Equation 19.

ρvD
Re = (19)
µ

53
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Re Reynolds Number
ρ Fluid Density (lbs/ft3 )
v Fluid Velocity (ft/s)
D Launch Vehicle Diameter (in.)
µ Fluid Viscosity l b/ f t /s

Both ρ and µ only differ marginally between the higher and lower altitude, and since D was at
40% of the full-scale value, the velocity during the wind tunnel test would have needed to be
nearly 740 ft/s to achieve dynamic similarity. Since the flow velocity in the wind tunnel was
nowhere near this speed, the wind tunnel Reynolds number was much lower than it will be
during flight, resulting in a boundary layer that extended past the edge of the drag tabs, as was
shown in the CFD analysis in Section 3.7.3.2. Because of this, a drag coefficient for the tabs
could not be obtained from the wind tunnel data. For future calculations and control software,
the team will use the average drag coefficient of 2.06 extracted from the CFD analysis.

3.8 Recovery System

In order to recover the launch vehicle, a removable recovery system has been designed. At
vehicle apogee, a set of independently powered altimeters will ignite black power ejection
charges, separating the vehicle into two tethered sections and deploying a 2 ft drogue
parachute to control descent. The vehicle will then descend to an altitude of 600 ft AGL, at
which point the altimeters will ignite another set of black powder charges that will separate the
vehicle into three tethered sections and deploy a 10 ft main parachute. At 400 AGL, an
altimeter in the nose cone will separate the nose cone from the payload section, into a total of
four tethered sections, descending under a single main parachute.
As it is not required for safe recovery of the vehicle, the nose cone separation system will be
treated as a payload subsystem. The design of this system is described in Section 5.3.2.

3.8.1 Parachutes, Harnesses, and Attachment Hardware

A FruityChutes CFC-24 elliptical parachute will be deployed at apogee as a drogue

parachute. Deploying a small drogue a parachute at apogee allows for a stable, controlled
descent until main parachute deployment while limiting drift and descent time. See Table 22
for the manufacturer specifications of the drogue parachute.

54
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 22: FruityChutes CFC-24 Specifications

Specification Value
Diameter 24 in.
Cd 1.5
Shape Elliptical
Canopy Material 1.1 oz Ripstop Nylon
Shroud Lines 220 lb Nylon
Weight 2.2 oz

The drogue parachute is protected from the black powder charges using a 24 in. Nomex
blanket, which is tied to the recovery harness. Nomex is fire-resistant, preventing the hot gasses
produced by the black powder from burning the nylon parachute canopy or shroud lines. Figure
53 shows an example of such a blanket.

Figure 53: Nomex blanket

A FruityChutes IFC-120-S parachute will be deployed at 600 ft AGL to slow the vehicle to
its landing velocity. The parachute was chosen due to its low packing volume and high drag
coefficient. The performance of the parachute is analyzed in Section 3.9.4. See Table 23 for the
manufacturer specifications of the main parachute.

Table 23: FruityChutes IFC-120-S Specifications

Specification Value
Diameter 120 in.
Cd 2.2
Shape Toroidal
Canopy Material 1.1 oz Ripstop Nylon
Shroud Lines 400 lb Spectra
Weight 22 oz

55
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

To protect the main parachute from the hot gasses produced by the black powder, the
parachute is packed in a 16 in. Nomex deployment bag. In addition to black powder
protection, the deployment bag slows the parachute’s deployment sequence and keeps the
shroud lines from tangling during parachute unfolding. A FruityChutes CFC-24 will be
attached to the deployment bag as a pilot chute in order to pull the deployment bag off of the
main parachute after vehicle separation. Figure 54 shows an example of a deployment bag.

Figure 54: Nomex deployment bag

To slow the deployment of the main parachute, and reduce the forces induced in the rest
of the vehicle, a stainless steel reefing ring is placed around the main parachute shroud lines.
During parachute opening, this ring will slide down the shroud lines, slowing down the opening
sequence and reducing the shock of a large parachute opening at drogue-parachute velocities.
The reefing ring has an inner diameter of 1 9/16 in. and a thickness of 1/8 in. At the bridle of
the parachute, a 3/8 in. stainless steel swivel will prevent the parachute from imparting torque
to the recovery eyebolts.
Shock cords will tether the separated sections of the vehicle in flight, as well as connect the
parachutes to the rest of the vehicle. Two cords will be used, one connecting the payload section
to the recovery tube, along which the main parachute will be attached, and one connecting the
recovery tube to the fin can, along which the drogue parachute will be attached. Both cords
will be OneBadHawk 1 in. tubular nylon harnesses, each with a length of 35 ft and loops sewn
into the cord at either end. The harness has a breaking strength of 4000 lbs according to the
manufacturer. Using the expected force calculated in Section 3.9.3, and the manufacturer-rated
strength, the shock cord has an expected factor of safety of 2.3. Figure 56 shows the recovery
shock cord, and Figure ?? shows how the shock cords, parachutes, and Nomex are arranged
during terminal descent.

56
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 55: Tubular Nylon shock cord

Figure 56: Parachute arrangement on descent

Eyebolts will transfer the parachute load from the shock cord to the recovery bulkheads. The
eyebolts are 3/8-16 threaded galvanized steel, of forged construction, with a lifting shoulder and
2 1/2 in. shank. The eyebolts are rated for 1400 lbs of static and up to 3100 lbs of shock load,
giving a factor of safety of 4.1 when comparing against the peak expected loads calculated in
Section 3.9.3. Galvanized steel was selected for its strength, availability in the required lengths,
and resistance to corrosion. These eyebolts will be mated using a 4 in. coupling nut, positioned
in the center of the CRAM core. Oversized steel washers between the eyebolt shoulder and
the CRAM bulkheads help to spread the load of parachute deployment, and split lock washers
prevent the eyebolts from backing out of the coupling nut in flight.

Stainless steel locking quick links connect the parachutes to the shock cords and the the
shock cords to the recovery eyebolts. These quick links are constructed from 3/8 in. 316
stainless steel, for strength and corrosion resistance, and feature a threaded sleeve that screws
in place on the link shackle to prevent the link from opening in flight. The quick links have a
manufacturer-rated working load of 2700 lbs and a maximum shock load of 6000 lbs, giving a
factor of safety of 3.4 when comparing against the peak expected loads calculated in Section

57
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3.9.3 . A total of six of these will be used, one to connect each parachute to the shock cord, and
two to connect each end of the shock cord to its mounting location within the vehicle. An
example of the quick links can be seen in Figure 57.

Figure 57: Stainless steel quick link

3.8.2 Recovery Electronics

The black powder ejection charges that separate the vehicle and deploy the parachutes
during descent are controlled using three independent, commercial flight computers, two
Featherweight Raven 3 altimeters and one PerfectFlite Stratologger SL100. Both the Raven and
Stratologger were chosen due to their small size and power requirements, demonstrated
reliability, and quality of recorded data. Using two separate models of altimeter brings
additional redundancy to the recovery system, as the system will not fail due to a design flaw
inherent to one type of altimeter. Each altimeter controls its own drogue ejection charge and
main ejection charge, and is independently powered by its own 3.7 V LiPo battery. Both of the
altimeters connect to their respective batteries and e-matches through screw terminals. Both
types of altimeters can be seen in Figure 58.

(a) Raven3 (b) Stratologger SL100

Figure 58: Recovery Altimeters

Ejection charge ignition is staggered to avoid damage to the vehicle due to

over-pressurization of the parachute bays. The primary Raven altimeter is programmed to
deploy its drogue charge immediately at apogee, and its main charge at 600 ft, the secondary
Raven altimeter is programmed to deploy its drogue charge 1 s after apogee and its main
charge at 550 ft, and tertiary altimeter, a Stratologger, is programmed to deploy its drogue
charge 2 s after apogee and its main charge at 500 ft. Any failure to transition state in one of the
altimeters has no effect on the other two altimeters, meaning that it would take three
independent altimeter faults to cause recovery failure. Figure 59 shows the process that each of
the altimeters undergoes during flight.

58
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 59: Altimeter Deployment Logic

The altimeters are powered using YDL 170 mAh, 1S LiPo batteries, one for each altimeter.
The batteries have a nominal voltage of 3.7 V, which is within the operating range of both the
altimeters used. Both the altimeters draw less than 5 mA during standby, giving the altimeters a
theoretical maximum on-pad wait time of 34 hrs. The batteries were chosen for their extremely
light weight (approximately .21 oz) and high current output, assuring e-match ignition. The
batteries feature a robust 2mm PH JST connector, allowing strong yet removable connection to
the rest of the recovery electronics and easy recharging before flights. The battery type that will
be used can be seen in Figure 60.

Figure 60: Lithium-Polymer Battery

Two types of switches arm the recovery system. The altimeters are powered on using
Featherweight magnetic switches, which allow the altimeters to be turned on and off from
outside the vehicle using only a magnet. The altimeters are connected to the black powder

59
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

e-matches using Aerocon ThroughMount slotted switches. These single-pole, double-throw

switches can be activated using a small screwdriver inserted in a hole drilled through the
vehicle. Both switches were selected due to their light weight and resistance to vibration. The
slotted rotary switch requires an appreciable amount of torque to arm, negating the chance of
accidental recovery activation or deactivation through vibration or shock. The magnetic
switches are entirely solid-state, eliminating any chance of accidental activation or
deactivation through flight or assembly forces. The circuit locations of the two switches
require that both be activated before the recovery system is fully armed, giving extra safety to
personnel during assembly and launch preparation. Figure 61 shows both types of switches to
be used.

(a) Magnetic (b) Slotted Rotary switch

switch
Figure 61: Recovery Switches

Three solderable perfboards connect the batteries and switches to each of the altimeters.
Solderable perfboards were chosen for electrical connection due to the strength of soldered
wire connections and the small size of perfboards when compared to wire crimps or other
connection systems. In addition, soldered perfboards can be quickly modified and repaired if
they undergo damage, unlike PCB connections. Figure 62 shows how the two Raven3
altimeters are connected on the perfboard, and Figure 63 shows how the Stratologger altimeter
is connected on the perfboard.

60
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 62: Raven3 Circuit Diagram

Figure 63: Stratologger Circuit Diagram

3.8.3 Altimeter Bay Design

The altimeters that control ejection charge deployment, as well as the associated batteries
and switches, are contained in the Compact Removable Avionics Module, or CRAM. The
primary feature of the CRAM is a twist-to-lock retainment system that allows for robust
mounting inside the vehicle while still being easily removable for data retrieval and
replacement of ejection charges. Figure 64 shows the full CRAM assembly.

61
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

7
2

5
3

6
4

8 TOP_BULKHEAD 1
8 7 EYEBOLT 2
6 CRAM_BODY 1
5 COREPIN 3
4 CORE_ASM 1
3 BOTTOMBULKHEAD 1
1 2 4_IN_BOLT 3
1 1-4_20_NUT 3
ITEM PART QTY
Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Joseph Sutton
Year: 2019-2020 Title: Full CRAM Assembly Date: Jan-09-20 Scale: 0.333

Figure 64: Full CRAM Assembly

The CRAM core is the central component of the CRAM to which the altimeters and other
electronics are mounted. The CRAM core will be 3D printed from PLA due to its availability
and ease of manufacturing. The low strength of 3D printed PLA is not a detriment in this
application, as the CRAM core is entirely non-load bearing. The core will be printed in two
sections a top and bottom, and joined by press-fit steel pins. The altimeters and soldered
breadboards will be secured to the core by 2 #2-56 screws and nuts each, while the rotary
switch will be epoxied into its mounting hole. The batteries will be secured to the core via
semi-permanent foam mounting tape. The CRAM eyebolts will be secured to the steel
coupling nut in the CRAM core. Figure 65 is a drawing of the assembled core.

62
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6 STRATOLOGGER 1
5 RAVEN3 2
4 PERFBOARD 3
3 CORE_TOP 1
2 CORE_BOTTOM 1
1 BATTERY 3
ITEM NAME QTY
Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Joseph Sutton
Year: 2019-2020 Title: CRAM Core Assembly Date: Jan-09-20 Scale: 0.625

Figure 65: Assembled CRAM core

Bulkheads on either side of the CRAM distribute the loads from parachute deployment and
keep the CRAM core inside the body. The 1/8 in. bulkheads feature multiple holes to allow
for the PVC charge wells and space for wires to run from the CRAM to the charge wells. The
bulkheads will be CNC milled from Garolite G10 fiberglass, chosen because of its good strength-
to-weight ratio, excellent impact strength, and overall durability. Three 4 in. long, 1/4-20 bolts
with nuts are used to secure the bulkheads to the CRAM body and retain the core.
During parachute deployment, the CRAM bulkheads will transfer load between the
recovery eyebolts and the CRAM body. The worst-case forces experienced by the bulkheads are
calculated in Section 3.9.3. The forces calculated were entered into a Fusion360 static
simulation study to analyze the stresses that the bulkheads undergo. Figures 68 and 69 display
the results of the studies. The top bulkhead features a Von Mises Stress FOS of 5.9, while the
bottom bulkhead features a FOS of 4.0, given the peak found in the analysis and a material
tensile strength of 40000 psi.

63
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

.2413

1.0500

.3750

5.4340

.2500
4.8259

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Joseph Sutton
Year: 2019-2020 Title: CRAM Top Bulkhead Date: Jan-01-20 Scale: 0.667

Figure 66: Drawing of CRAM top bulkhead

Figure 69: Finite Element Analysis of CRAM bottom bulkhead

The CRAM body retains the ejection charges and transfers load from the CRAM bulkheads
to the ring adapter and the recovery tube. The tapered cutouts on the exterior of the CRAM
interface with a ring adapter mounted in the recovery tube, allowing the whole CRAM to be
secured into the body tube with a 60 degree twist. Hardwood screws inserted from the outside
of the body tube keep the CRAM body from twisting free in flight. Holes in the exterior of the
body allow for access to the altimeter arming switches, as well as airflow for proper altimeter
function. These holes match holes drilled in the vehicle body tube to allow for access from the

64
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

5.4340
.2413

.2500
1.05

.3750

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Joseph Sutton
Year: 2019-2020 Title: CRAM Bottom Bulkhead Date: Jan-01-20 Scale: 0.667

Figure 67: Drawing of CRAM bottom bulkhead

exterior of the vehicle. On the top and bottom of the CRAM are 1 in. diameter, 2.5 in. long PVC
pipes that function as charge wells, holding the black powder ejection charges in place during
launch. The CRAM body will be CNC milled from 3/4 in. oak common board in four pieces,
and permanently assembled using JB-Weld epoxy. Wood was chosen due to its good strength-
to-weight ratio ease of manufacturing, and low cost. Alignment dowel pins ensure that the
twist-to-lock tapers remain aligned.

65
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 68: Finite Element Analysis of CRAM top bulkhead

2.0174

3.2500 .9944

.5112

.2500

1.0500

1.4478

5.4680

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Joseph Sutton
Year: 2019-2020 Title: CRAM_BODY Date: Jan-09-20 Scale: 0.366

Figure 70: Drawing of CRAM body

To protect the altimeters and other electrical components of the recovery system from
electromagnetic interference, electromagnetic shielding in the form of copper foil tape is
added to the interior of the CRAM body and the altimeter-facing sides of the CRAM bulkheads.
The pieces of copper tape will overlap when the CRAM is fully assembled, forming a
contiguous Faraday cage to protect from electromagnetic signals. During parachute
deployment, the CRAM body will transfer the parachute force from the bulkheads to the
vehicle body tube. The worst-case forces experienced by the CRAM body are calculated in
Section 3.9.3. The forces calculated were entered into a Fusion360 static simulation study to

66
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

analyze the stresses that form. Figure 71 displays the results of the static study. From this
study, the bulkhead features a Von Mises FOS of 6.2, given the peak stresses found in the
analysis and oak’s against-the-grain tensile strength of 6760 psi.

Figure 71: Finite Element Analysis of CRAM body

The ring adapter that connects the CRAM to the vehicle’s body tube is a 1/4 in. thick ring
with internal protrusions that match the external cutouts of the CRAM body. The adapter will
be machined from oak board in two pieces and epoxied together, in a manner similar to the
CRAM body. The adapter is permanently epoxied into the recovery tube, 6 in. forward of the aft
end of the tube.

.2416

5.9840

1.5000

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: Joseph Sutton
Year: 2019-2020 Title: CRAM Adapter Date: Oct-31-19 Scale: 0.600

Figure 72: Drawing of CRAM tube adapter

During parachute deployment, the ring adapter will transfer load from the CRAM body to

67
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

the rocket body tube. Figure 73 displays the results of a Finite Element study done on the ring
adapter, using expected peak forces calculated in Section 3.9.3. The ring adapter has a Von
Mises FOS of 20.6, given the peak stresses found in the analysis and oak’s against-the-grain
tensile strength of 6760 psi.

Figure 73: Finite Element Analysis of CRAM Ring adapter.

3.8.3.1 Rocket Separation

In order to determine the amount of 4F black powder needed for separation, the force
necessary to break the shear pins can be calculated with Equation 20. The friction between
vehicle sections is assumed to be negligible in comparison to the force of the shear pins. The
pressure necessary to break the shear pins can then be calculated from Equation 21.

F
F = τA s n (20) P= (21)
Ab
F Force (lbf )
τ Shear Strength (psi) P Pressure (psi)
As Shear Pin Area (in.2 ) F Force (lbf )
n # of Shear Pins Ab Bulkhead Area (in.2 )

Because the combustion reaction of black powder occurs at high temperatures (1837 K) and
relatively low pressures (less than one atmosphere), the ideal gas law can be used to find the
number of moles of gas needed to produce the necessary pressure with Equation 22.

PV
ng = (22)
RT

68
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

ng Moles of Gas (mol)

P Pressure (atm)
V Chamber Volume (L)
R Gas Constant (L*atm/mol/K)
T Combustion Temperature (K)

A simplified balanced equation for the combustion of black powder is given in Equation 23.

2K NO 3 (s) + S(s) + 3C (s) → K 2 S(s) + N2 (g ) + 3CO 2 (g ) (23)

The moles of gas needed can be converted into moles of each solid component of the black
powder using stoichiometry, and the moles can be converted to grams using the molar mass of
each component, shown in Equations 24-26.

mol gas 2 mol KNO3 101.1 g KNO3

× × = g KNO3 (24)
1 4 mol gas 1 mol KNO3

mol gas 1 mol S 32.1 g S

× × =g S (25)
1 4 mol gas 1 mol S

mol gas 3 mol C 12.0 g C

× × =g C (26)
1 4 mol gas 1 mol C

Adding the grams of each component together gives the total mass of black powder needed
for the separation event, shown in Equation 27.

g KNO3 + g S + g C = g Black Powder (27)

A FOS of 25% is then added to give a total amount of black powder needed. This calculation
is performed for each separation event to determine the amount of black powder needed for
each charge. The calculated value is then rounded up to the nearest half gram for
measurement simplification.

Summary of Black Powder Charge Calculations

Tables 24, 25, and 26 contain a summary of the expected black powder forces, pressures, moles
of gas, and mass of powder used to separate the drogue parachute compartment, the main
parachute compartment, and the nosecone, respectively. Full calculations can be seen in
Appendix A.

69
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 24: Drogue Parachute Black Powder Ejection Charge Summary

Separation F (l b f ) P (atm) n g (mol gas) M ass 4F (g)

Initial 181 0.438 0.0148 1.0
Secondary 273 0.657 0.0222 1.5
Tertiary 273 0.657 0.0222 1.5

Table 25: Main Parachute Black Powder Ejection Charge Summary

Separation F (l b f ) P (atm) n g (mol gas) M ass 4F (g)

Initial 273 0.699 0.0665 4.5
Secondary 323 0.777 0.0741 5.0
Tertiary 323 0.777 0.0741 5.0

3.8.4 Telemetry

In order to track the position and status of the vehicle in real time during its flight, a
telemetry system has been designed. The telemetry system gathers data during flight,
packages it, transmits it to a relay station, and receives it at a ground station where the position
and status of the vehicle are displayed. The portion of the telemetry system onboard the
vehicle is located in the nose cone, and transmits at 250 mW of power and a frequency of 433
MHz using a dipole antenna. The main function of the telemetry system is transmission of
GPS data; however, the transmission of pressure and acceleration data will also be included to
give a more accurate estimation of the vehicle’s position. For an illustration of the overall
system design, see Figure 74.

70
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 26: Nose Cone Black Powder Ejection Charge Summary

Separation F (l b f ) P (atm) n g (mol gas) M ass 4F (g)

Nose Cone 286 0.387 0.0148 1.0

Figure 74: Telemetry System Block Diagram

3.8.4.1 Subsystem Design

The telemetry system is comprised of five subsystems: the vehicle sensor management
system, the vehicle transceiver, the relay station transceiver, the ground station transceiver,
and the ground station user interface. The vehicle sensor management system is responsible
for collecting data from the telemetry sensors on-board the vehicle, packaging the data, and
providing this package to the vehicle transceiver. The vehicle transceiver then transmits data
to the relay station transceiver, which in turn forwards the data to the ground station
transceiver. The ground station user interface receives data from the transceiver and reports it
to observers.

3.8.4.1.1 Onboard Vehicle System

Vehicle Sensor Management System The telemetry system has a GPS, accelerometer, and
barometric altimeter onboard the vehicle. Each sensor is sampled at a minimum frequency by
a microcontroller in order to maintain an optimal resolution for the data that is being gathered

71
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

so that it is accurate enough to be considered nominally correct. The sensors were selected
because they possess desired characteristics needed for system performance, shown in Table
27.

Table 27: Vehicle Sensor Specifications

Max. Sampling Max. Operating

Sensor Product Name Interface
Freq. (Hz) Altitude (ft)
GPS CAM-M8C-0-10 10 50,000 I2C
IMU BNO055 100 N/A I2C
Accelerometer KX222-1054 25.6 (kHz) N/A I2C
Altimeter MPL3115A2 160 11,775 I2C

Two accelerometers, the BNO055 and KX222-1054, are integrated into the telemetry system
to serve different functions. The BNO055 has a fusion mode that performs sensor fusion
calculations on measurements from the accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer to
obtain an absolute orientation measurement. While in fusion mode, the BNO055 clips at an
acceleration of 129 ft/s2 and is therefore not a reliable accelerometer. To compensate for this,
the BNO055 serves exclusively as an orientation sensor, whereas the KX222-1054, capable of
operating at accelerations up to 1029 ft/s2 , serves as the accelerometer of the telemetry system.
The KX222-1054 is useful because of its high maximum sampling rate. While it is possible to
derive acceleration from GPS measurements, the low sampling rate of the CAM-M8C-0-10
does not provide the desired resolution for acceleration data. Conversely, with a maximum
sampling rate of 25.6 kHz, the KX222-1054 can achieve the minimum sampling requirement of
800Hz.
The GPS sensor must be sampled at a minimum of 10Hz, as this frequency is a standard for
GPS readings and provides a minimum resolution of 59 ft. In order to achieve a resolution of
approximately 6 ft, the altimeter is sampled at a minimum rate of 100 Hz. The data rates of each
sensor are shown in Table 28

Table 28: Calculated Sensor Data Rates

Frequency Data Rate

Device Type Device # Measurements # Bits
(Hz) (bits/s)
Altimeter MPL3115A2 1 24 160 3840
GPS CAM-M8C-0-10 3 32 10 960
Accelerometer KX222-1054 3 16 800 38400
Accelerometer BNO055 N/A 243 100 24300
Total 67500

Managing this system of sensors requires the use of a microcontroller that can
accommodate four I2C interfaces to read from each device. The PIC32 MCU family from

72
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Microchip is suitable for this requirement given the number of I/O ports that are available to
support the necessary interfaces. Since this family of microcontrollers requires a 3.3 V input, a
voltage regulator, such as the LD1117, is required to downconvert the 3.7 V-4.2 V range from
the battery. Additionally, the sensor readings are performed using timer interrupts due to the
sampling frequency requirements. In order to ensure a sufficient timing accuracy, an external
oscillator is used by the microcontroller.
To store each data packet locally, the microcontroller must write data to an SD card. The
SanDisk Ultra microSDXC is a suitable option due to its memory capacity of 128GB and ease of
removal for analysis.
Vehicle Transceiver
The transceiver module selected for use in the design is the ADF7030 from Analog Devices,
which is capable of operating between 426 MHz and 470 MHz. Because of the data rate
requirement of the system, an operating frequency in the 433 MHz band was selected to
decrease path losses and increase effective range. In addition, none of the other transmitters
located in the payload of the vehicle operate in the 433 MHz band, ensuring that the vehicle
transceiver will not interfere.
The vehicle transceiver must be capable of transmitting between 200-250 mW of radiated
power. The ADF7030 is capable of outputting -20 dBm to 17 dBm (0.01 mW to 50 mW) of
power from its transmit ports. For this reason, an external 20 dB power amplifier is placed on
the output of the ADF7030, and the tunable output power of the transceiver is used to adjust
the exact radiated power of the antenna to be in the range of 23 dBm to 24 dBm. The ADF7030
is capable of operating with either a 2FSK or 4FSK modulation scheme. Because extremely
high data rates are not required, 2FSK was selected in order to maximize possible range. When
transmitting with the 2FSK modulation scheme, the maximum data rate of the ADF7030 is
150kbps, which meets the requirement of 67.5 kbps.
Assuming that the relay station is placed approximately 2,500 ft from the launch site, the
line-of-site distance from vehicle transceiver to relay receiver is 5,500 ft. Future testing will
confirm that the vehicle transceiver is capable of transmitting the required distance at the
specified transmission angle of 63°, shown in Section 6.1.2. However, due to the design
decision to set the transceiver to the maximum allowed transmission power of 250 mW, as well
as other design decisions made to maximize the effective range, the system is expected to be
able to meet the transmission range requirement.
In order to guarantee that the transceiver is able to maintain a connection to the relay
station throughout the entire duration of the vehicle’s flight, a half-wave dipole antenna has
been selected for the design: the ANT-433-MHW-SMA-S, designed for use in the 433 MHz
band. The radiation pattern of this antenna is symmetrical about the X-Z plane, as shown in
Figure 75. This allows the antenna to have an approximately equal gain of 0 dB regardless of
the roll orientation of the vehicle. The radiation pattern for this antenna is approximately
equivalent regardless of whether the antenna is pointing upwards or downwards. For this
reason, when mounted in the nose cone, the transmitter antenna will be able to maintain an
approximately equal gain of -5 dB when oriented upwards and downwards at the maximum
transmission angle of 63°.

73
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 75: Gain Plots for the ANT-433-MHW-SMA-S Antenna

Vehicle Subsystem Power Considerations

The subsystems onboard the vehicle are required to run on independent power and are
limited by what weight and size constraints allow for in terms of battery selection. The system
must have an effective life which exceeds the length of the mission, as well as any potential
standby time the vehicle may experience while sitting on the pad. Full Recovery Requirements
can be seen in Table 90. To estimate the running time of the vehicle subsystems while powered
by the selected Adafruit Lithium Ion 3.7 V 2500 mAh battery, calculations were performed as
shown in Table 29.

Table 29: Estimated Power Budget

Accel. IMU Total

Device/State ADF7030 GPS Altimeter PIC
(KX222) (BNO055) Current
Current Draw
65 71 0.145 12.3 2 100 250.445
(mA)

The power budget calculations were estimated using the current draw for each device on the
vehicle subsystem board, assuming that the ADF7030 is in the transmit state for the entirety of
operation to produce a conservative estimate.

3.8.4.1.2 Relay Station Transceiver

In order to achieve an ideal radiation pattern with proper directivity, a cross-polarized patch

74
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

antenna is used at the relay station. The radiation pattern of this antenna captures the position
of the vehicle throughout its flight. The transmission to the ground station is achieved with a
second identical antenna set to transmit. An ADF7030 transceiver is used to both receive data
from the vehicle and transmit data to the ground station. A PIC32 microcontroller controls this
radio chip via an SPI interface by sending timed radio commands.

3.8.4.1.3 Ground Station Transceiver

In order to maintain directivity towards the relay station, the design uses a cross-polarized
patch antenna at the ground station. A patch antenna has ideal directivity, and the
cross-polarization allows for better communication between the antennas regardless of
orientation. Additionally, the design uses the ADF7030-1 transceiver at the ground station to
maintain consistency with the relay station and vehicle transceivers. This allows the system to
maintain a consistent data rate of 67.5 kbps.
In addition, to receive the data from the ADF7030, the ground station subsystem includes
the same microcontroller from the PIC32 family specified in Section ??, along with a similar
external oscillator to ensure accurate timing. This microcontroller is capable of communicating
with the transceiver chip via an SPI interface, and is able to process the data stored in each of
the packets. In addition, an FTDI FT230XS-R USB to serial UART converter chip is used to allow
the PIC32 microcontroller to send the received data to the ground station user interface over
USB.
Because the PIC32 microcontroller, ADF7030, and FTDI FT230XS-R require 3.3 V power, an
LD1117 linear regulator is used to convert the 5 V input from the USB connection supplied by
the laptop down to the required 3.3 V.

3.8.4.1.4 Ground Station User Interface

Since the ground station UI must report data from four different sensors in near-real time,
this data must be presented clearly and intuitively. This means that instead of reporting purely
numerical values, figures and plots are also utilized. For example, the GPS readings will be
plotted on a map to provide a visual interpretation of where the vehicle is located.
Measurements from the orientation sensor, accelerometer, and altimeter will be plotted
continuously to demonstrate the trajectory and altitude of the vehicle respectively throughout
the flight. Following the conclusion of the test, these figures and plots can be saved locally for
future analysis and reporting.

3.8.4.2 Telemetry Housing

The telemetry vehicle subsystems are housed in the nose cone of the vehicle through the
use of a 3D printed ASA Plastic, twist-to-lock retainment system, similar in form to that shown
in Section 3.8.3. The adapting ring is integrated directly into the nosecone assembly, as shown
in Figure 5, and the removable cylinder piece has been resized to the dimensions of the nose
cone, as shown in Figure 76.

75
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Ø6.15
Ø5

.27

60°
Ø5.62

60°

.51

.99

A DETAIL A
SCALE 1:2
3.13

Notre Dame Rocketry Team Project: CDR Drawn By: James Cole
Year: 2019-2020 Title: Telemetry Housing Date: 1/10/2020 Scale: 1:2

Figure 76: Drawing of Telemetry Housing Cylinder

A 0.125 in G10 Garolite bulkhead is secured to the bottom of the housing cylinder with epoxy.
An eyebolt is secured through the center of the bulkhead with a nut and washer to allow for the
nose cone to be ejected by a black powder charge during the decent of the vehicle, but will
remain tethered to the vehicle as described further in Section 5.3.2. The loads that the twist-
to-lock system and retention assembly are expected to experience will be low enough that the
bulkhead and 3D printed ABS cylinder are well within safe limits. To ensure that this is the
case, Finite Element Analysis was conducted on the part. With a load case of 300 lb, which is
significantly higher than the maximum expected force of 188 lb, the resulting factor of safety,
with a minimum S of 7.35, is significantly large enough to assuage any causes for concern of
structural failure.

76
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 77: Finite Element Analysis for Stresses in Telemetry Housing Cylinder

3.8.4.2.1 RF Transparency

One major concern during the design and integration of the telemetry system is reducing
sources of RF interference. As such, materials surrounding the vehicle onboard subsystem
were selected for both strength and RF transparency. The nose cone is made out of 3D printed
ASA plastic, while the telemetry housing cylinder is made from 3D printed ABS plastic and the
telemetry bulkhead is made from G10 Garolite, all of which are RF transparent. Aft of the
telemetry vehicle subsystem, RF opaque materials and structures like carbon fiber and faraday
cages respectively are utilized to assist in RF shielding vulnerable subsystems like e-matches
and altimeters. However, it is unlikely that these constructs will interfere with the ability of the
telemetry system to transmit vehicle data during flight.

3.9 Mission Performance Predictions

To ensure that the vehicle performs as expected and meets all mission requirements, a
number of simulations and calculations were performed. The next few sections will go in
depth on how the design of the launch vehicle will affect its performance as well as the
purpose of these simulations.

3.9.1 Flight Simulations

The launch vehicle’s flight is governed by major events such as ignition, rail exit, burnout,
among others. The expected flight profile was simulated in two separate ways in order to build
confidence in design choices for target apogee. The team first simulated the flight using
OpenRocket, as shown in Figure 78. The predicted apogee is 4921 ft. Because the ABS is
predicted to be able to reduce the apogee of the launch vehicle by 500ft, this makes the target
apogee of 4444 ft achievable.
The team also used a fourth order Runge-Kutta Method and the coefficient of drag estimated
from CFD simulations and subscale tests to estimate the predicted flight profile. The results
of this simulation are shown in Figure 79. As shown, the maximum and minimum predicted

77
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 78: Launch Vehicle Flight Profile OpenRocket Simulation

apogees are 4940 ft and 4464 ft AGL respectively. Again, because the ABS is predicted to be able
to reduce the apogee of the launch vehicle by 500 ft, this again confirms that the target apogee
is achievable for any possible launch conditions.

3.9.2 Stability

According to NASA Requirement 2.14, the off rail static stability margin of the launch vehicle
is required to be above 2.0. Additionally, Team Derived Requirement V.10 states that the static
stability must be between 2 and 3 calibers in order to prevent an over stable launch vehicle
that tilts into the wind. Two different methods were used to calculate the center of pressure in
order to find the static stability margin. OpenRocket software predicted that the off-rail center
of pressure was located 96.36 in from the tip of the nose cone. In addition to OpenRocket, the
team used an Ansys Fluent simulation to estimate the center of pressure. The simulation relied
on farfiled static boundary conditions, a continuity residual convergence criteria of 10−3 , 1000
iterations, and a Mach number of 0.045, which corresponds to the estimated off-rail velocity for
the launch vehicle. The simulation yielded a center of pressure 94.16 in from the tip of the nose
cone. The center of gravity was calculated to be 75.75 in from the nose cone with the motor and
69.93 in without it. A summary of the static stability parameters are shown in Table 30.

78
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 79: Runge-Kutta Flight Profile Simulation for various wind conditions

Table 30: Static Stability Margin Parameters

Method Cp (in) Cg (in) Static Margin

OpenRocket 96.36 75.75 2.57
Ansys Fluent 94.16 75.75 2.30

As shown, the static stability margin is at a minimum of 2.3, well within the team derived
requirements. However, the center of gravity and center of pressure shift over the course of the
flight and so OpenRocket was used to verify that the launch vehicle remained stable over the
course of the entire flight. A plot of the stability margin over the course of the predicted flight is
shown in Figure 80.
The center of gravity is measured prior to all launches to ensure that the static margin is
sufficient for a successful mission.

3.9.3 Main Parachute Opening Force

The drag forced induced on the vehicle by main parachute opening was modeled using a
simple Euler’s method. Using the terminal velocity of the rocket under the drogue parachute
as an initial velocity, the instantaneous force induced by the main parachute was found using

79
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 80: OpenRocket Stability Plot for predicted flight

the drag equation, described in Equation 28, using the parachute parameters provided by the
manufacturer.
1
F d = ρV 2C d A (28)
2

Fd Drag Force (lbf )

ρ Density of Air (slugs/ft3 )
V Velocity (ft/s)
Cd Parachute Coefficient of Drag
A Parachute Area (ft3 )

The acceleration of the vehicle was then found using Newton’s second law described in
Equation 29, and the target dry mass of the vehicle.

Fd
a= (29)
m

Fd Drag Force (lbf )

a Vehicle Acceleration (ft/s2 )
m Vehicle Dry Mass (slugs)

The initial velocity of the vehicle for the next time step was then found using the calculated
vehicle acceleration and the simulation time step, as described in Equation 30.

Vnext = Vcur r ent + a ∗ d t (30)

80
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Vnext Velocity of Next simulation step (ft/s)

Vcur r ent Velocity of Current simulation step (ft/s)
a Vehicle Acceleration (ft/s2 )
dt Simulation Time Step (s)

The calculation was then repeated, using Vnext as the initial velocity in calculating the drag
force for the next time step. The simulation was carried out for a total of 0.15 seconds, using a
time step of 0.0001 seconds. Figure 81 shows the main parachute drag force and vehicle
acceleration, as a function of time, as calculated through this iterative method. The calculated
maximum acceleration during parachute opening is 44.4 g. This method of force calculation is
conservative, as it assumes that the parachute instantaneously changes from closed to open.
In reality, the parachute will take time to open, which will reduce the peak drag forces and
vehicle acceleration.

(a) Main Parachute Drag Force (b) Vehicle Acceleration

Figure 81: Vehicle Dynamics during Main Parachute Opening

From the results of this simulation, the peak forces on the various load bearing components
of the vehicle were calculated. The quicklink that connects the main parachute to the recovery
harness is expected to bear the full parachute drag forces. The load-bearing portion of the ABS is
expected to bear the inertial forces induced in in the fin can, the CRAM body and bulkheads are
loaded with the inertial forces induced in the recovery tube and avionics bay, and the payload
bulkhead is loaded with the inertial forces of both the payload section and nosecone. Table 31
shows the expected loads and factors of safety of the load bearing components of the vehicle,
during main parachute deployment.

81
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 31: Main Parachute Load Summary

Component Expected Peak Load (lbs) FOS

Quicklink 1741 3.4
Shock Cord 1741 2.3
Eyebolts 757.5 4.1
ABS Bulkhead 452.0 11.9
CRAM Top Bulkhead 269.3 5.9
CRAM Bottom Bulkhead 269.3 4.0
CRAM Body 269.3 6.2
CRAM Adapter 269.3 20.6
Payload Section Bulkhead 677.7 3.7

3.9.4 Descent Rate and Kinetic Energy

To find an accurate measure of the kinetic energy the vehicle sections will have on landing,
three calculations of the vehicle’s descent rate were performed. The first is calculated using an
OpenRocket simulation of the vehicle, at a variety of different launch angles and wind speeds.
The highest descent rate the OpenRocket simulation recorded was at a launch angle of 10
degrees, with a 0 mph wind. The second calculation was made using the parachute
manufacturer’s descent rate calculator, and the third was performed using the terminal
velocity equation, Equation 31, in a rudimentary MATLAB simulation. Table 32 shows a
summary of the worst-case vehicle descent rates, as well as the worst-case section kinetic
energy on landing.

s
2mg
Vt = (31)
C d Aρ

m Vehicle Mass (slugs)

ρ Density of Air (slugs/ft3 )
Vt Vehicle Terminal Velocity (ft/s)
Cd Parachute Coefficient of Drag
A Parachute Area (ft3 )

All the different kinetic energy calculations are within 10 percent of each other, and all are at
least 17 percent from the NASA designated maximium of 75 ft-lbs.

82
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 32: Vehicle Descent and Kinetic Energy Summary

Simulation Method Descent Rate (ft/s) Kinetic Energy (ft-lbs)

OpenRocket Simulation 15.6 61.6
FruityChutes Calculator 15.22 58.7
MATLAB Simulation 15.0 57.1

3.9.5 Vehicle Descent Time

The time that the vehicle takes to descend from its apogee to the ground was calculated
using the same calculation methods. The worst-case descent time predicted by the OpenRocket
simulation was 85.7 seconds, using a launch angle of 0 degrees and a wind speed of 0 mph.
The FruityChutes descent rate calculator predicts a descent time of 86.9 seconds, 47.4 seconds
under the drogue parachute and 38.5 seconds under the main parachute. MATLAB simulations,
using Equation 31 as a base, showed a vehicle descent time of 88.3 seconds. Table 33 shows a
summary of the descent time calculations.

Table 33: Vehicle Descent Time Summary

Simulation Method Descent Time (s)

OpenRocket Simulation 85.7
FruityChutes Calculator 86.9
Hand Calculation 88.3

3.9.6 Vehicle Drift

The total drift the rocket would experience was calculated using two different methods: an
OpenRocket simulation and a team-developed 4th order Runge-Kutta simulation in MATLAB.
In both simulations, the highest drift was recorded using a launch angle of 0 degrees and a
wind speed of 20 mph. The OpenRocket simulation predicted a drift distance of 2226 ft. under
those launch conditions, while the MATLAB simulation predicted a drift distance of 2184 ft.,
both under the 2500 ft. maximum drift designated by the handbook. Figure 82 shows the flight
profile provided by the OpenRocket simulation at a variety of wind speeds, and a launch angle
of 0 degrees.

83
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 82: OpenRocekt simulated flight profile, at 0◦ launch angle and wind speeds of 5-20 mph.

4 Safety

4.1 Checklists

The team will make use of checklists on launch day to ensure that all components are
properly assembled and prepared for flight. These checklists will be explicitly followed by all
team members. Signatures will be used to ensure that necessary personnel have reviewed the
checklist and verified that all steps have been completed in each list.

84
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

University of Notre Dame

NASA SLI Launch Checklist

General

Required Personnel

NAR Certified Launch Manager: Dave Brunsting

Safety Officer: Brooke Mumma
Team Captain and Vice Captains: Collette Gillaspie, Jed Cole, Eric Dollinger
Vehicles Lead: Estefy Castillo
ABS Lead: Ben Tompoles
Recovery Lead: Joe Sutton
LSRS Lead: Greg Bracht
A team member may fill in for one of these leads if approved by the Safety Officer.

Tools

1 hand drill, fully charged Hot glue gun Metal files

Drill bit case with Garbage bags Assorted screws
standard range of bits
Rocket stands Wire cutters
Standard wrenches
Rocketpoxy Wire strippers
Standard Alan wrenches
JB Weld Bluntnose pliers
Screwdriver set
Soldering iron Needlenose pliers
Electrical tape
Lead solder Dial caliper
Duct tape
Digital multimeter Tape measure
Masking tape
Pens/pencils Sandpaper
Scissors
Exacto knives Epoxy applicators
2 folding tables

Personal Protective Equipment

Box of nitrile gloves First aid kit gloves

Pair of cut resistant gloves Dusk masks Safety glasses
Fire resistant battery bags Pair of heat resistant Leather gloves

85
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Vehicles

Vehicles Pre-Departure Checklist

Required Personnel: Vehicles Lead

Required PPE: None

Equipment

Nose cone Locking screws Washers

Payload bay Motor (2) Nuts
Transition Section Motor Casing Screws
Recovery Tube Motor Retainer Motor retainer
Fin can Eyebolts
Shear pins Camera

Inspection

BFailure to complete the following steps could result in an unidentified failure mode and
thus a failed launch
Inspect each body tube for deformations or cracks to ensure there is no damage
Check adhesives and connectors at each connection to make sure they are strong
Inspect fins for any cracks or deformations

Vehicles Pre-Flight Checklist

Required Personnel: Vehicles Lead, Safety Officer, Launch Manager

Required PPE: Leather gloves, Heat resistant gloves, Safety glasses
BFailure to complete the following steps in order could result in an unidentified failure
mode and thus a failed launch
BLeather gloves should be used at any step where two components are connected in order
to avoid pinch points
Recovery Integration (See Recovery Checklist)
Pack main parachute below the transition section. Ensure that the parachute is not
packed so tightly that is cannot be pulled out
Pack drogue parachute above the fin can. Ensure that the parachute is not packed so
tightly that is cannot be pulled out

86
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Ensure that all shock cords are attached and eye bolts are secured. One end of the drogue
shock cord should still be loose
Secure the recovery tube to the payload bay with shear pins
ABS Integration
Insert ABS into fincan by matching the notches to the internal dowel rod in the body
tube
The removable bulkhead at the top of the system is then secured using four button head
screws.
Inspect the drag tab cutouts in the fin can to ensure that the tabs are visible and have
clearance to extend
Place one 10 washer and lock nut on each of the threaded rods at the top of the forward
ABS bulkhead to secure them to the fin can
Inspect through the barometric vent holes to ensure that the LEDs are still lit and
indicate the system is not prematurely in the launched state
If the LEDs indicate a premature launched state, the system must be removed and reset.
Make a final inspection of the system’s installation for any obvious defects or
abnormalities
Attach loose end of drogue shock cord to the ABS top bulkhead eyebolt
Secure fin can to recovery tube using shear pins
Telemetry Integration
Use twist to lock mechanism to screw telemetry system into nose cone
Secure the lock by aligning the two eye bolts and tying them with Kevlar cord
Payload Integration
Slide sliding platform into slots on stationary platform
Thread nuts and bolts through holes on platform
BThe next steps should ONLY be performed by the Launch Manager Dave Brunsting. Gloves
and safety glasses should be worn.
Prepare nose cone ejection charge LM:
Create one ejection charge using an e-match and black powder. Ensure that the
e-match loose wires are shunted together to prevent accidental ignition of the black
powder
Re-check to ensure that the battery box switch is in the “off” position
Connect the loose ejection charge wire to its corresponding lever wire
Place the ejection charge in its corresponding PVC charge well
Cover each charge well with painters tape to keep the charge in place

87
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Ensure all wire holes are plugged with sealing clay

BThis concludes the steps that must be performed by the Launch Manager
Press fit nose cone between the sliding bulkhead and the inner diameter of the payload
bay body tube. Be careful to align the shear pin holes.
Place shear pins in holes
Flight Camera Integration
Insert the MicroSD card into the back of the camera
Press power button
Wait for steady yellow light from camera
Press the recording button (button with the camera symbol).
If camera is flashing yellow, then the camera is recording
Insert the camera into the transition section slot so that the lens is facing downward
On the edge closest to the lens, place three small washers and loosely fit a lock nut onto
the tie rod
On the edge further from the lens, place the medium washer and then two small washers
and loosely fit the lock nut on the tie rod
If the camera does not fit, or has too much space to move, repeat previous four steps
If a proper fit is achieved, tighten the lock nuts with crescent wrench
Perform shake test of assembly to ensure secure connection
BThe next steps should ONLY be performed by the Launch Manager Dave Brunsting. Gloves
and safety glasses should be worn.
Motor Assembly LM:
Remove the motor from its packaging
Check that the motor is properly assembled according to manufacturer’s instructions
and inspect the motor for defects
Insert the propellant into the casing, ensuring that the two spacers precede the
propellant
Screw on the rear closure
Insert the motor into the rocket, ensuring proper motor direction
Attach the motor retainer
Check for a secure fit
BThis concludes the steps that must be performed by the Launch Manager
BThe Cg and stability check should be performed by the Vehicles lead
Center of gravity and stability check VL:

88
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Perform center of gravity (Cg) test to ensure the center of gravity matches the simulated
Cg by placing the fully assembled vehicle on a thin wooden stand so that it is cantilevered
on both sides. Move the vehicle until it perfectly balances.
Mark the measured Cg and simulated Cg on the vehicle
Mark the simulated center of pressure (Cp) on the vehicle
Ensure calculated stability corresponds to predicted value
Ballast as necessary to maintain a stability margin of >2 calipers or within 10% of
predicted margin (whichever is greater)
Vehicle Setup and Launch Pad Preparation
Register with LCO and RSO at the launch site
Lower the launch rail such that it is parallel to the ground
Align the rail buttons with the rail and slide the vehicle onto the rail with the fin can
towards the ground
Set rail angle to be perpendicular to the ground with an added maximum 7 degrees into
the wind Allow payload and subsystem teams to activate systems
BThe next steps should ONLY be performed by the Launch Manager Dave Brunsting. Heat
resistant gloves and safety glasses should be worn.
Igniter Installation LM:
Clear all personnel except for the Launch Manager
Check that the ignition wires, connected to the launch control system, do not have a live
voltage across them. This can be done by lightly touching the clips to each other while
away from the vehicle, watching for sparks. If no sparks are thrown it is safe to proceed.
Remove the igniter clips from the igniter
Ensure that the igniter has properly exposed ends which are split apart
Insert the igniter into the motor
Attach the clips to the igniter, ensuring good contact
Clear the launch are of all personnel and maintain the distance as designated by the RSO
in accordance with NAR/TRA regulations
If motor does not ignite when planned, wait for RSO instruction to approach

Vehicles Post-Flight Checklist

Required Personnel: Vehicles Lead, Safety Officer, Launch Manager

Required PPE: Heat resistant gloves
BTeam members should wait for RSO approval to approach vehicle and enter the launch
field

89
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

BAfter landing the motor still may be hot or batteries could catch fire. It is important to
assess the landed components carefully
Assess the landing site and vehicle for potential hazards such as fire or smoke
Examine recovery and payload sections for unexploded black powder charges, if any are
found, see troubleshooting procedures
Document state of vehicle with photographs before moving any part
Disconnect quick links where possible to transport the vehicle
BThe next step should ONLY be performed by the Launch Manager Dave Brunsting. Heat
resistant should be worn.
Motor Removal LM:
Remove the motor retainer from the vehicle
Ensure that each subsystem completes their Post-Flight Checklist

I certify and attest that the above checklists have been fully and properly completed

Safety Officer: Date:

90
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Air Braking System (ABS)

ABS Pre-Departure Checklist

Required Personnel: ABS Lead

Required PPE: Fire proof battery case

Equipment

Assembled ABS Fire-proof battery case 6-32 nylon lock nuts

Assembled ABS Fully charged batteries 10-32 nylon lock nuts
electronics
6-32 nylon screws Tenergy LiPo charger
ABS electronics toolbox
10-32 nylon screws

Inspection

BFailure to complete the following steps could result in an unidentified failure mode and
thus a failed launch
Inspect ABS for material defects. After ensuring battery is disconnected, inspect the
mechanical system for loose screws and bent components, particularly the drag tabs
With the battery disconnected from the circuit board, inspect electronics for secure
connections and mounting
Verify batteries are fully charged based on LED status of Tenergy LiPo charger
Ensure the proper control code has been installed on the Raspberry Pi

ABS Pre-Flight Checklist

Required Personnel: ABS Lead, Safety Officer

Required PPE: Fire proof battery case
BFailure to complete the following steps in order could result in an unidentified failure
mode and thus a failed launch
BLiPo batteries are a potential fire risk and should always be inspected for swelling to
punctures before use. When not in use batteries should be housed in the fire proof
battery case.
For both batteries, install the battery and ensure the snap cover battery case cover is
secured
Ensure the SD card is inserted in the Raspberry Pi prior to powering the system
Connect the battery’s molex connector to the circuit board and flip the power switch

91
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Confirm that the power-LED has lit

Inspect the status LEDs for the sensors and SD card to ensure the Raspberry Pi controller
is properly receiving sensor data and writing to the SD card
In the event that these lights do not turn on, notify the ABS lead immediately
If ABS is to be active for this flight, turn on the arming switch. Ensure the arming LED turns
on
Check that the drag tabs are flush with the support plates

ABS Post-Flight Checklist

Required Personnel: ABS Lead, Safety Officer

Required PPE: Fire proof battery case
BTeam members should wait for RSO approval to approach vehicle and enter the launch
field
BAfter landing the motor still may be hot or batteries could catch fire. It is important to
assess the landed components carefully
Use a screwdriver to unscrew the button head screws from the forward bulkhead of the
ABS.
Check that the drag tabs are fully retracted to avoid jamming the ABS in the fin can while
removing.
Carefully remove the ABS from the fin can by lifting with the Recovery system eyebolt at
the forward bulkhead of the ABS
Inspect the avionics system for power and status LED indication to determine if power was
lost during flight or landing
Flip the power switch to turn off the system
Inspect the batteries for damage. If damaged, place in the fire-proof battery case for safe
storage
Inspect and note any damage to the mechanical system or payload assembly
Remove the micro SD card form the Raspberry Pi
Insert the micro SD card into the SD card adapter and plug into a laptop. Open the data
log file on the SD card and verify successful flight metrics

I certify and attest that the above checklists have been fully and properly completed

Safety Officer: Date:

92
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Recovery

Recovery Pre-Departure Checklist

Required Personnel: Recovery Lead, Vice Captain, Safety Officer

Required PPE: Fire proof battery case, nitrile gloves, safety glasses

Equipment

CRAM body 3/8 in split lock washers Laptop with

(2) Featherweight Interface
CRAM core, both pieces
Program and Perfectflite
Lever nut wire connectors
CRAM core pins DataCap installed
(6)
Raven3 altimeters (2) Data cable for Raven
E-matches (6)
Stratologger SL100 altimeters
Black powder (mentor,
Altimeter Data cable for
19.5g)
Fully Charged 3.7v, 170 Stratologger altimeter
3/8 in Eyebolts (2)
mah Batteries (3) Fire-retardant cellulose
3/8 in Quick links (6) wadding
Assembled altimeter
wiring perfboards Slider Ring Talcum powder
CRAM top bulkhead 1 in Nylon shock cord (35 Sealing clay
ft, x2)
CRAM bottom bulkhead Telemetry Housing
Main parachute (10 ft) Assembly
4 in, 1/4-20 Grade 8 bolts
(3) Drogue parachute (2 ft) Telemetry Vehicle
1/4-20 hex nuts (3) Pilot Chute (2 ft) Electronics

1/4 in washers (6) Main Parachute Telemetry Relay Station

Deployment Bag Telemetry Ground Station
3/8 in washers (2)
24 in Nomex blanket (2) 1/8 in kevlar chord

Inspection

BFailure to complete the following steps could result in an unidentified failure mode and
thus a failed launch.
Inspect main parachute bulkhead (in transition section of vehicle) for fatigue or failure in
bulkhead and epoxied seal.
Lay out the shock cord and tie knots in the locations where the drogue and main
parachutes will be attached to mark their locations.
Ensure that the ends of the main shock cord have loops to accept quick links. Check for

93
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

holes or wear.
Check the LiPo batteries to ensure a full charge.
Connect each altimeter to a battery through the mounted screw terminals and connect the
altimeter to a laptop through the data cable. Check the programming of the altimeters to
confirm proper deployment programming.
Ensure that 6 lever nut wire connections are properly epoxied to the upper CRAM bulkhead

Recovery Pre-Flight Checklist

Required Personnel: Recovery Lead, Vice Captain (Jed Cole), Safety Officer, Launch Manager
Required PPE: Fire proof battery case, safety glasses
BFailure to complete the following steps in order could result in an unidentified failure
mode and thus a failed launch
BLiPo batteries are a potential fire risk and should always be inspected for swelling to
punctures before use. When not in use batteries should be housed in the fire proof
battery case.
Telemetry Activation and Uplink
Insert SD card into telemetry vehicle system
Connect power to telemetry vehicle system
Turn on telemetry relay system
Connect power to telemetry ground station
Activate uplink between telemetry vehicle system and relay station
Activate uplink between relay station and ground station
Ensure that ground station is properly receiving data package
Place relay station approximately 2500 ft away from pad
Main Parachute Folding
Suspend the parachute by its shroud lines, shaking the parachute lightly to untangle the
cords.
Line all of then shroud lines up such that they are the same length. Tape the shroud
lines at this position to make folding easier. MAKE SURE TO UNTAPE THE PARACHUTE
SHROUD LINES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION IN THE VEHICLE.
Flatten out the canopy of the parachute, such that there are an even number of gores on
either side of the centerline, where the shroud lines are. Ensure all of the gores are flat,
folded in an accordion-like fashion.
Fold both sides of the parachute inwards toward the center line, forming a rectangular
parachute shape.

94
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Feed the slider ring up from the parachute bridle all the way to the beginning of the
canopy.
Quicklink the crown of the parachute to the deployement bag tether.
Z-fold the deployment bag tether and insert it in the bag, pushing it all the way to the
top.
Push the canopy of the parachute into the open deployment bag, starting with the top
and working down the folded canopy.
Z-fold and lace the shroud lines of the parachute along the straps mounted to the outside
of the deployment bag. Ensure that the shroud lines are capable of easily pulling out of
the straps.
Untape the shroud lines.
Quicklink the pilot chute to the deployment bag.
Add a quicklink to the main parachute bridle.
Drogue and Pilot Chute Folding
Suspend the parachute by its shroud lines, shaking the parachute lightly to untangle the
cords.
Line all of then shroud lines up such that they are the same length.
Flatten out the canopy of the parachute, such that there are an even number of gores on
either side of the centerline, where the shroud lines are. Ensure all of the gores are flat,
folded in an accordion-like fashion.
Fold one side of the parachute towards the other, forming a flat triangle with shroud lines
protruding from one corner.
Fold the parachute shroud lines upwards into the middle of the triangle, with the
parachute bride sticking out the bottom.
Fold the parachute in half longways, then Z-fold it.
Attach a quicklink to the parachute bridle and loosely wrap in Nomex blanket.
CRAM Assembly
Check to ensure all of the solder joints on the altimeter perfboards are solid, and that the
board is securely screwed to the CRAM core.
Secure each the altimeter to its respective perfboard with screws and ellectrically
connect it using the on-board screw terminals.
Plug each altimeter battery into its respective JST port on the perfboard.
Place the CRAM core in the CRAM body.
Four wires protrude from each perfboard, two upwards and two downwards. Feed the
upward-facing wires through the CRAM top bulkhead and the bottom-facing wires
through the CRAM bottom bulkhead. Connect them to the Wago lever nuts on the

95
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

oustide face of the bulkheads.

Bolt the bulkheads onto the CRAM body.
BThe next steps should ONLY be performed by the Launch Manager Dave Brunsting. Gloves
and safety glasses should be worn.
Ejection charges LM:
Create six ejection charges using e-matches and black powder. Ensure that the e-match
loose wires are shunted together to prevent accidental ignition of the black powder.
Re-check to ensure that the recovery activation switches are all in the “off” position
Connect each loose ejection charge wire to its corresponding lever wire connector.
Place each ejection charge in its corresponding PVC charge well, covering the full well
with painter’s tape.
Ensure all wire holes in the CRAM upper bulkhead are plugged with sealing clay.
BThis concludes the steps that must be performed by the Launch Manager
CRAM Integration Preparation
Thread the eyebolts into place on either side of the CRAM.
Twist the CRAM into place in its adapter in the recovery tube.
Ensure that the switch ports and air holes in the CRAM are visible from the holes in the
airframe.
Screw the CRAM in place from the outside to keep it from rotating.
Parachute Installation
Ensure that all both the parachutes are properly connected to the shock cords and
enclosed in the Nomex parachute protectors
Connect the fore end of the shock cords to the prepared eyebolts in the recovery tube,
fin can, and transition section using quicklinks.
Fold the excess shock cord together in an accordion fashion and loosely tape it together
with a single layer of painters tape.
Place several handfuls of cellulose recovery wadding in the recovery tube near the top of
the CRAM
Lightly coat the outside of the main and drogue parachutes with talcum powder
Arming the System
Use a magnet to activate the magnetic switches on all three altimeters
Listen for each altimeter’s starting sequence.
Use a screwdriver to switch each altimeter’s second switch.
Listen to the continuity beeps of the altimeters to confirm both main and drogue charges
are active for all three altimeters.

96
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Recovery Post-Flight Checklist

Required Personnel: Recovery Lead, Vice Captain, Safety Officer, Launch Manager
Required PPE: Fire proof battery case
BAfter landing the ejection charges may not have detonated or batteries could catch fire. It
is important to assess the landed components carefully
Before touching the rocket, take pictures in landed state, paying specific attention to the
positions of the shock cord and parachutes
Ensure all three ejection charges have properly fired
Bring launch vehicle back to staging table and remove the CRAM. Turn off all but the main
altimeter and invert the CRAM
Listen to and record the altitude provided by the Raven altimeter
Inspect the parachutes, chute releases, shock cords, CRAM, bulkheads, connectors, and
launch vehicle for any damage sustained during the flight

I certify and attest that the above checklists have been fully and properly completed

Safety Officer: Date:

97
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

LSRS

LSRS Pre-Departure Checklist

Required Personnel: LSRS Lead

Required PPE: Fire proof LiPo Bag, Nitrile Gloves, Safety Glasses

Equipment

2 1/8 inch kevlar chord Sliding Platform Fully charged 1800 mAh,
11.1 V Battery (2)
Fore Bulkhead UAV Sled
Fully assembled Rover
Stratologger SL100 Platform nut and bolt (2)
Altimeter Fully assembled UAV
Solenoid (4)
Fully Charged 3.7v, 170 Fully charged 5000 mAh,
Stability Rod and Stopper
mAh Battery 11.1 V Battery
Orientation Bearing
Stationary Platform Fully assembled Sample
Aft Bulkhead nut and bolt Retrieval System

Inspection

BFailure to complete the following steps could result in an unidentified failure mode and
thus a failed launch
BLiPo batteries are a potential fire risk and should always be inspected for swelling to
punctures before use. When not in use batteries should be housed in the fire proof
battery case.
Ensure that all batteries are fully charged for all systems
Check wiring connections on UAV, Rover, and ROD to ensure that all electronics are secure
Check UAV, Rover, and ROD ASA plastic components for cracks or defects
Ensure that bearing is able to rotate freely when solenoids are not in place
Ensure solenoids fully extend

LSRS Pre-Flight Checklist

Required Personnel: LSRS Lead, Safety Officer, Launch Manager

Required PPE: Fire proof battery case, nitrile gloves, safety glasses
BFailure to complete the following steps in order could result in an unidentified failure
mode and thus a failed launch

98
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

BLiPo batteries are a potential fire risk and should always be inspected for swelling to
punctures before use. When not in use batteries should be housed in the fire proof
battery case.
UAV Activation
Connect power to UAV System
Ensure connection with Ground Station via the LED
Ensure UAV is in low power mode via LED
Rover Activation
Connect power to Rover System
Ensure connection with Ground Station via LED
Ensure Rover is in low power mode via LED
Ensure proper sample retrieval system connection via LED
Placement into Payload Bay
Properly slide UAV into UAV Sled
Place UAV Sled on platform such that pins go through UAV Struts
Ensure solenoid pins are inserted into UAV sled by sending a signal to the system
Place Rover body onto platform and insert solenoid pins by sending a signal to the
system
Retention Activation
Connect ROD system to Rover using detachable cables
Ensure communication with rover via LED on deployment

LSRS Post-Flight Checklist

Required Personnel: LSRS Lead, Safety Officer

Required PPE: Fire proof battery case
BAfter landing the ejection charges may not have detonated or batteries could catch fire. It
is important to assess the landed components carefully
Ensure nose cone charge has proerly fired
Document state of LSRS with photographs
Make any notes regarding mission success/failure
Inspect batteries for any damage
Inspect all systems for any damage
Empty sample retrieval system

99
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Turn off the ROD solenoids, UAV, and rover

Properly store LiPo batteries
vspace5 pt I certify and attest that the above checklists have been fully and properly
completed

Safety Officer: Date:

100
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Troubleshooting Checklist

Altimeter Issue on the Launch Pad

The Raven altimeter performs a continuity check before flight to ensure that all ejection
charges are properly connected. Should the altimeter fail this check on the launch pad, the
altimeters may need to be removed and examined.
BEnsure that the battery box switches are in the "off" position. Failure to turn off the
altimeters could result in unintentional black powder ignition.
Take the rocket off of the launch pad and back to the preparation table.
Remove the shear pins from the rocket and separate the sections.
Remove the parachute, Nomex protector and shock cords from the rocket.
Separate the fin can and recovery tube
Unbolt the CRAM from the aft recovery bulkhead.
Slide the CRAM out of the rocket.
BRecheck to ensure that the battery box switches are in the "off" position. Failure to do so
could result in unintentional black powder ignition.
Disconnect the black powder charges from the lever nut wire connections.
Unbolt and remove the CRAM upper bulkhead and filler.
Remove the CRAM core and examine the altimeter wire connections for defects. If none
are detected, plug the Raven altimeters into a computer for diagnostics. Consult the user’s
manual for more information.

Tight Fitting Parachute

If the folded parachute is too tight inside the parachute bay, it may not slide out upon
separation, which will result in the vehicle descending much faster than normal.
BDO NOT attempt to force the parachute into the bay. This can prevent clean separation at
apogee and potentially damage the rocket or parachute.
Remove the parachute from the vehicle
Unfold the parachute and refold according to the procedure outlined in the Recovery
Checklist.
Ensure that all folds are crisp and that the finished parachute is very tightly rolled.
Reattach the chute releases. Ensure that the chute releases are turned on.
Re-wrap the parachute in Nomex.
Proceed to re-install the parachute in the rocket using the procedure outlined in the

101
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Recovery Checklist. A layer of talcum powder on the parachute and coupler may also help
the parachute to slide out.

Ignition failure

Occasionally, a rocket motor will fail to ignite on the pad. This can be caused by numerous
issues, such as faulty igniters, incorrect installation, faulty launch equipment, and damaged
motor.
After a failed ignition, the LCO of a launch range will typically attempt another ignition. If
this fails, proceed to the next step.
BThe remaining steps should only be performed by the Launch Manager.
Disconnect the igniter from the ignition clips.
Carefully remove the igniter from the motor.
Install another igniter, paying careful attention to standard procedure, and attempt
another ignition.
If this ignition fails, take the rocket off the pad, take the motor out and inspect it for damage
or incorrect assembly.
If the motor appears in good condition and properly assembled, inspect the launch system
to ensure that it is properly set up, in good condition, and has a charged battery. The range
LCO should perform this inspection.
Put the rocket back on the pad and attempt another ignition with a fresh igniter. If this
fails, consult the Launch Manager for further troubleshooting.

Removing Black Powder Charges

In the unlikely event that a black powder charge remains intact during descent, the charge
must be removed before regular post-launch procedures can commence.
BEnsure that all altimeters are fully powered off by flipping the switches on the attached
battery boxes into the "off" position. Failure to do so could result in an unintentional
ignition.
BThese next steps should only be performed by the Launch Manager.
Separate the fin can and recovery tube
Unbolt the CRAM from the aft recovery bulkhead.
Remove the CRAM from the body tube.
BRe-check to ensure that the battery box switches are in the "off" position.
Unhook the black powder charges from the level nut wire connections. Remove the
charges from the charge wells.

102
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Dispose of the charges through University Hazardous Waste procedures.

Punctured or damaged battery

Extremely dangerous, if believed to be damaged at all, battery should not be used AT ALL.
While the team is still at the launch site, the battery should be housed in a fire proof battery
case. The battery should then be disposed of according to University Standards upon return.
BPPE required are heat resistant gloves and safety glasses
If battery is believed to be damaged, approach with caution, as it should be considered an
exploding hazard. PPE must be worn when handling the defective battery.
Battery should be handled with care, and held away from face and body.
Place battery in fireproof battery disposal bag
Bring battery to qualified and authorized disposal site

103
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

4.2 Safety Analysis

Hazards are evaluated at a level of risk based on their severity and probability of occurrence.
Risks will be evaluated at each subsystem level as well as the project management level. The
Systems and Safety team will continue to re-evaluate the risks, mitigations, and verifications as
the project continues. Probability of occurrence will be evaluated and designated with values
1 through 5, with 5 being that the event in question is almost certain to happen under present
conditions, and 1 being that it is improbable the event occur. The criteria for this scoring is
outlines in Table 34 below.

Table 34: Probability of hazard occurrence classification

Description Value Criteria

Improbable 1 Less than 5% chance that the event will occur
Unlikely 2 Between 5% and 20% chance that the event will occur
Moderate 3 Between 20% and 50% chance that the event will occur
Likely 4 Between 50% and 90% chance that the event will occur
Unavoidable 5 More than 90% chance that the event will occur

As mentioned, this probability is evaluated according to present conditions, meaning two

assumptions were made. The first is that if the conditions change, the probability will be
re-evaluated and changed accordingly. The second assumption is that all personnel involved
in the activity will have undergone proper training and clearly acknowledged understanding of
the rules and regulations outlined in safety documentation. This may include, but is not
limited to, the safety manual, compiled SDS document, FMEA tables, most recent design
review, and lab manual if applicable. The evaluation of occurrence probability will also
assume that proper PPE was used, all outlined procedures were correctly followed, and all
equipment was inspected before use. Severity of the incident is evaluated on a scale of 1
through 4, where 4 is that the incident will prove catastrophic, and 1 is that the incident will
prove negligible. Severity is evaluated according to the incident’s impact on personal health
and well-being, impact on mission success, and the environment. The score shall be based off
of whatever the worst case scenario for the types of impacts being considered. These
considerations will be re-evaluated anytime new hazards are identified. The criteria used to
evaluate severity of each hazard is outlined are Table 35.

104
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 35: Severity of hazard classification

Description Value Criteria

Could result in insignificant injuries, partial failure of
systems not critical to mission completion, project
Negligible 1 timeline or outcome possibly affected and might
require corrective action, or minor environmental
effects.
Could result in minor injuries, complete failure of
systems not critical to mission completion, project
Marginal 2
timeline or outcome affected and requires corrective
action, or moderate environmental .
Could result in severe injuries, partial mission failure,
severe impact to project requiring significant and
Critical 3
immediate corrective action for project continuity, or
severe and reversible environmental effects.
Could result in death, total mission failure, complete
Catastrophic 4 failure of project rendering project unable to continue,
or severe and irreversible environmental effects.

By combining the severity and probability values, a risk score will be assigned to each
hazard. Risk scores will have a value from 1 to 20 where is lowest risk and 20 is the highest risk.
Risk levels can be reduced through mitigating actions which will lower either the severity score
or the probability score. Actions will be taken starting with the highest risk level hazards, and
will continue through the lower levels until all hazards have been reduced as much as possible.
All hazards pose a risk and will not be ignored, but the classifications help the Safety officer
prioritize resources to those that require the most immediate attention. Mitigations can take
the form of design considerations to reduce severity or probability of failure, verification
systems created to ensure proper operating conditions, and better handling procedures to
follow. Risk scores and the risk levels that correspond with each score are outlined in the risk
assessment matrix shown in Table 36, and the description of each risk level is listed in Table 37.

Table 36: Risk Assessment Matrix

Severity Level
Probability Level
Negligible (1) Marginal (2) Critical (3) Catastrophic (4)
Improbable (1) 1 2 3 4
Unlikely (2) 2 4 6 8
Moderate (3) 3 6 9 12
Likely (4) 4 8 12 16
Unavoidable (5) 5 10 15 20

105
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 37: Description of Risk Levels and Management Approval

Risk Level Acceptable Level/Approving Authority

High Risk Highly Undesirable. Must be approved by Team Captain, Safety Officer,
and supervising squad lead.
Medium Risk Undesirable. Must be approved by Safety Officer and supervising squad
lead.
Low Risk Acceptable. Must be approved by supervising squad lead or Safety
Officer.

In order to properly assess the risks facing the mission, key areas for assessment were
identified: project risks, personnel hazards, failure modes and effects, and environmental
concerns. Each one of these areas was then broken down further into more specific categories
of interest and analyzed in the same manner. Each risk is assigned a risk value prior to
mitigations and then a risk value after mitigations are in place.

106
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.1 Project Risk Analysis

Table 38: Project Risk Analysis

Probability

Severity
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. Tests will be logged and

Team must build an
1. All components will be tested documented; multiple sources
entirely new vehicle

Medium
Complete destruction or 1. Uncontrolled descent individually prior to full-scale (calculations, simulations) and

High
causing project
loss of full scale or 2. Energetics improperly assembly trials will be used to verify the
delays and doubling
subscale vehicle contained 2. Construction procedures will results
the costs of the
be written prior to construction 2. Construction procedures will
project
be available prior to construction
1. The team has chosen February
1. Multiple dates will be chosen 1st, 15th, and 22nd in order to
for a possible launch meet the demonstration flight
1. Weather conditions
2. The team will implement a deadline
Failure to conduct 2. Construction is

Medium
Inability to Technology Readiness Level 2. The team has a chart to track

High
subscale launch by incomplete
participate in schedule to ensure that all the the individual subsystems TRLs in
January 10th full scale 3. Failure to find a date
competition subsystems are meeting each order to identify any issues with
launch by March 2nd that works with both the
deadline meeting deadlines
team and mentor
3. The team will push to meet the 3. The team will begin full scale
first available date for launch construction two weeks prior to
the first available launch date
1. The allocation of funds are 1. This years’ budget has been set
based off of previous years’ in Section 6.3 according to
1. Allocation of funds to a Team takes on debt spending and design. previous need and consultation

Medium

High
Lack of funds/exceeding subsystem is insufficient or funds from travel 2. Parts will be sourced to find the with each design lead
budget 2. Parts are not properly or other subsystems best quality at the lowest cost. 2. Team members must submit

2019-20 Critical Design Review

sourced diminish Each part should be considered their receipts and add to the
from at least three vendors if budget to ensure they are tracking
possible. their spending
1. Parts (especially 1. Custom parts will be ordered 1. Any custom parts will be
custom) ordered have an early in order to avoid project ordered at least three weeks in
anticipated arrival date delays and if they are critical the advance of the start of
Medium

that will not work with team will order an additional construction and the design lead
High

Delay in receiving Project delays and/or

the team deadlines component in the case one is will determine whether or not
parts/issues with vendors mission failure
2. The part shipped by a damaged multiples should be ordered
vendor is incorrect or 2. NDRT has compiled a trusted 2. All team members ordering
does not meet the needs vendor list to ensure quality of parts will consult the trusted
of the team parts vendor document
107
 University of Notre Dame
All tasks on the team will have

Medium

Medium
1. Injury or illness All designs and tests will be well
Team member leaves Project delays and/or multiple members assigned or at
2. Member has other documented in case someone
team incomplete work least multiple members aware of
commitments should have to take over
the details of the task
1. PPE will always be stocked in 1. The Safety Officer will check for
the workshop and a part of the PPE in the workshop prior to all
Injury to personnel Systems & Safety budget construction; the Safety Officer

Medium

High
1. Insufficient PPE and the potential for 2. All personnel that will be will be notified when certain PPE
Safety violations
2. Insufficient training the workshop space participating in construction items are almost out of stock.
to be revoked must be certified in the Student 2. Students must show their
Fabrication Lab according to certification card before entering
university regulations the workshop during construction
Construction procedures will

Medium
Medium
Parts to complete the Personnel will make an itemized provide a good check to make
Insufficient materials Project delays
project are not ordered list of parts in their designs sure all the parts need for
fabrication are ordered
Launch site does not The NDRT leadership will confirm
Violation of FAA by

High
Low
have proper waiver for The team will not use any launch with prospective launch sites that
exceeding approved Potential legal action
the team’s altitude sites without the proper waiver they have the proper waiver for
altitude
requirement NDRT’s selected altitude.
1. The team will confirm all tests 1. All test results will be
1. Test equipment is with calculated results and documented and shared with the
Incorrect data could

Medium
faulty simulations team

Low
Improper testing lead to faulty
2. Inability to use 2. The team will reach out to test 2. The team will reach out to test
equipment analyses and/or
University resources for facilities early to ensure lab time facilities at least three weeks in
design decisions
more complex testing and comply with regulations at advance of the anticipated testing
each facility date

2019-20 Critical Design Review

108
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.1.1 Construction

Table 39: Personnel Hazard Analysis-Construction Operations

Probability
Probability

Severity
Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. All team members participating

Skin contact
Mandating safety gloves and in construction are trained in the
with strong Not using proper gloves Severe allergic reactions,
safety training for all team workshop according to University
adhesive necessary for safe severe irritation to skin, 3 2 6 1 2 2
members who will work with standards
materials, such glue/epoxy application and damage to skin
adhesives 2. MSDS sheets are readily
as epoxy or glue
available in the workshop
Severe damage to fingers
Contact with the and/or other body parts All team members participating in
Mandatory safety training for all
spinning bit of a Improper technique that including cutting, construction are trained in the
3 4 12 team members who will work 2 4 8
portable drill or regarding drill use scraping, breaking, workshop according to University
with drills
drill press amputation, or other standards
injury
Loose workplace Not securing part All team members participating in
Blunt bodily damage, Mandatory general workshop
materials when properly with vise, construction are trained in the
cuts, or impalement to 2 4 8 safety training for all team 1 4 4
drilling, sanding, clamps, or hands during workshop according to University
the body members
or cutting machine use standards
Severe damage to fingers
and/or other body parts All team members participating in
Contact with the Mandatory safety training will be
Improper technique and including cutting, construction are trained in the
spinning bit of a 2 4 8 conducted for all members who 1 4 4
poor hand placement scraping, breaking, workshop according to University
dremel use the dremel
amputation, or other standards

2019-20 Critical Design Review

injury
Severe damage to fingers Team members will be specially
Improper sawing
Contact with the and/or other body parts certified for proper use of the
techniques, which Mandatory safety training will be
cutting blade of including cutting, bandsaw through the review and
includes footing, cut 2 4 8 conducted for all members who 1 4 4
a bandsaw or scraping, breaking, signing of a safety form and
speed, and hand use the bandsaw
scroll saw amputation, or other hands-on training with members
placement
injury certified for bandsaw use
Team members will be specially
Contact with the certified for proper use of sanding
Damage to fingers Mandatory safety training will be
sanding surface Improper sanding equipment through the review
including scraping, 3 3 9 conducted for all members who 1 3 3
of a belt sander techniques and signing of a safety form and
burning, and severe cuts use the sanders
or a palm sander hands-on training with certified
109

members
 University of Notre Dame
1. Team members will not be
Projectiles,
Temporary or permanent allowed to work in the workshop
shrapnel, or
Not wearing protective damage to eyes which All team members in the without proper eye protection
other hazardous
eye gear at all times in the may lead to future or 4 4 16 workshop will be required to wear 2. All team members participating 2 4 8
materials
workshop immediate blindness or safety glasses at all times in construction are trained in the
launched into
degradation of vision workshop according to University
eyes
standards
1. Team members will be certified
for proper sanding safety through
the review and signing of a safety
form and hands-on training with
Inhalation of
members certified for sanding of
airborne Temporary or permanent
Team members working with materials such as carbon fiber and
particulates Not wearing respirator damage to the lungs
potentially harmful fumes will be fiberglass
resulting from when generating harmful which could cause 4 4 16 2 4 8
required to wear proper 2. Team members will not be
cutting, airborne particulates intense pains and
protective breathing gear allowed to work in the workshop
machining, or long-term health issues
without proper breathing
sanding parts
protection when generating
harmful particles
3. MSDS sheets are readily
available in the workshop
1. All team members participating
Extended Team members working with in construction are trained in the
Damage to the lungs that
inhalation of Not wearing protective potentially harmful fumes will be workshop according to University
could cause long or short 4 4 16 2 4 8
toxic fumes from breathing gear required to wear proper standards
term health effects
glue or epoxies protective breathing gear 2. MSDS sheets are readily
available in the workshop
1. All team members participating
Baggy clothes Parts of the body could
in construction are trained in the
getting caught in Baggy clothing that hangs be pulled into machines, Mandatory general workshop
workshop according to University
machinery and too close to machinery causing extensive bodily 4 4 16 safety training for all team 2 4 8
standards
causing bodily when working on parts damage and potentially members

2019-20 Critical Design Review

2. Members must wear proper
harm death
attire to enter the workshop
Not wearing protective
Damage to the hands and All team members participating in
footwear and clothing to Mandatory general workshop
Blunt bodily feet that results in construction are trained in the
protect from falling 3 3 9 safety training for all team 1 3 3
damage breakage or blunt workshop according to University
objects that are blunt or members
damage standards
sharp
Hands could receive All team members participating in
Mandatory general workshop
Poor 3D printer painful burns that could construction are trained in the
Burns 2 3 6 safety training for all team 1 3 3
operational procedures lead temporary or lasting workshop according to University
members
scarring standards
110
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.1.2 Launch Operations

Table 40: Personnel Hazard Analysis-Launch Operations

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. The Launch Manager, Dave

Dave Brunsting will be the only
Brunsting, will inspect all motors
individual to install any motor or
Motor explodes causing prior to launch
CATO Imperfections in motor 2 4 8 energetics and will obey NAR/TRA 1 4 4
personnel injury 2. Dave Brunsting will install the
guidelines and procedures when
motor prior to launch to ensure it
doing so
is installed correctly.
1. The launch platform will be
1. Launch vehicles tips built properly and checked to 1. All launch equipment will be
over towards personnel ensure structural integrity verified by the Launch Manager
Vehicle impact during launch sequence Personnel injured by 2. Stability of the vehicle off the 2. Vehicle stability simulations
2 4 8 1 4 4
with personnel 2. During recovery the launch vehicle’s impact rail is verified by simulations and can be seen in Section 3.9
Launch vehicles lands on testing 3. Pre-launch briefings will be
personnel 3. Personnel will be trained in held before each launch
launch proper procedures
1. Personnel will not touch the
1. All team members attending a
High 1. Motor is still hot after motor after landing
launch will attend a pre-launch
temperature of landing 2. Personnel will stand a safe
Burns to personnel 3 3 9 briefing prior to any launch 1 3 3
motor when 2. Personnel are too close distance as designated by the RSO
2. All team members must follow
ignited to launch pad at launch (at least 300 ft. as
instructions from the RSO
required by the NAR)
Pinch-points created Personnel are
The team leads will enforce the The team will provide and keep

2019-20 Critical Design Review

Pinch-points during Launch vehicles pinched/cut on their 4 1 4 2 1 2
use of hand PPE hand PPE (gloves, etc) in stock
assembly hands
1. Written announcements about
The team leads will inform potential weather hazards for
Direct exposure to sun personnel attending the launch team personnel will be sent in the
Excessive Sunburn, increased risk
for an extended period of 5 2 10 that they must wear proper full team email 2 2 4
sunlight of skin cancer
time clothes for long term exposure to 2. The Safety Officer will provide a
inclement weather. reminder during pre-launch
training sessions
1. The team leads will enforce the
1. The team will provide and keep
Sharp tools for System assemblies may use of hand PPE and proper usage
hand PPE (gloves, etc) in stock
system require pliers, scissors, Cuts to personnel 3 2 6 of all sharp tools 1 2 2
2. Leads will verify that personnel
assemblies and other sharp tools 2. All team personnel will be
111

using tools have received training.

trained in proper tool handling
 University of Notre Dame
Car accident Bad traffic/road Only drivers who are properly Leads will confirm driver
to/from the conditions to and from Personnel injury 2 4 8 certified will be allowed to drive certification before leaving for the 1 4 4
launch site the launch site personnel launch
Leads will inform all those
attending the launch that they
Inclement weather Leads will ensure that everyone
Extreme cold Hypothermia 2 4 8 must wear proper clothes for long 1 4 4
conditions leaving has proper attire
term exposure to inclement
weather
1. The "finger-pointing"
1. Payload dislodged
NDRT members will be attentive technique will be enforced
during launch Personnel injury via
Payload impact 2 3 6 during the launch and trained in 2. Pre-launch training sessions 1 3 3
2. UAV falls during impact
proper launch procedures will be conducted before each
mission
launch
1. NDRT will provide and keep in
1. Leads will enforce the use of
stock both hand and eye PPE
Battery for payloads proper eye and hand PPE during
Battery chemical Personnel recieves 2. Leads will visually check to
malfunctions during 3 3 9 the handling of chemical batteries 1 3 3
burn chemical burn make sure all batteries are
assembly 2. All batteries not in use will be
properly stored and that PPE is in
stored in a battery-safe container
use during handling

2019-20 Critical Design Review

112
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.2 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

4.2.2.1 Vehicles Flight Mechanics

Table 41: FMEA- Vehicles Flight Mechanics

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. Malfunction in Dave Brunsting will inspect all

Failure of motor The vehicle will not All energetics will be handled by
e-match 2 3 6 components involving energetics 1 3 3
to ignite takeoff Dave Brunsting
2. Imperfections in motor prior to launch
1. Deformation of launch 1. The Launch Manager will verify
Overall mission failure
rail. 1. Launch rail will be inspected launch equipment
with potential dangers to
2. Insufficient motor prior to launch 2. Motor selection can be seen in
property and people
Vehicle fails to burn 2. Motor selection is chosen based Section 3.2.2, and predicted rail
nearby who may endure 2 4 8 1 4 4
clear launch rail 3. Rail buttons deform or on simulations and calculations exit velocity can be seen in 3.9
injuries due to damages
break during motor burn 3. Rail buttons are carefully 3. Construction procedures will
or destruction to the
due to incorrect connected to vehicle be available in workshop prior to
vehicle
manufacturing. construction
Failure of vehicle
Vehicle moves along an 1. The Launch Manager will verify
to reach 1. Motor selection is chosen based
1. Improper motor unintended line of launch equipment
sufficient on simulations and calculations
selection motion causing potential 2 4 8 2. Motor selection and 1 4 4
velocity upon 2. Weight budgets have been
2. Excessive weight harm to vehicle or calculations can be seen in
exiting launch allocated to each subsystem
personnel Sections 3.2.2 and 3.9
rail
1. Fins design and material are
1. Fins will be made from 1/8 in.
chosen to minimize drag and
1. Fin material is G10 fiberglass in an isosceles

2019-20 Critical Design Review

maximize strength
inadequate for Vehicle moves along an trapezoid platform shape; see
2. Fin flutter velocity is calculated
withstanding flight unintended line of Section 3.3.6
and proven to be above expected
Fin Flutter velocities motion causing potential 1 4 4 2. Fin flutter velocity is calculated 1 2 2
max. vehicle velocity
2. Vehicle velocity harm to vehicle or to be below max. vehicle velocity,
3. Fin design and material are
exceeds the expected personnel shown in Section 3.3.6 3.
chosen based on calculations,
max. velocity Expected static stability margin is
simulations and testing to reach a
above 2.0, shown in Section 3.9.2
static stability margin of 2.0
113
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.2.2 Vehicles Structures

Table 42: FMEA - Vehicles Structures

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. Components are not

properly retained causing
1. Improper construction damage internally to the 1. Materials are selected carefully 1. Material selections for
2. Insufficient adhesives vehicle and its to withstand flight forces bulkheads can be seen in Section
Bulkhead failure to secure bulkheads components 3 3 9 2. Testing will be conducted to 3.4.1 1 3 3
3. Material cannot 2. Components are not ensure material strength is 2. Testing plans for solids testing
withstand shear stress protected from blasts sufficient for flight can be seen in Section 6.1.1.
3. Vehicle unitentionally
separates
1. Nose cone and vehicle body
materials will be chosen carefully
1. Unpredictable flight
and tested to ensure functional
path leads to crashing 1. 1. Retention FEA can be seen in
1. Shear pin failure capabilities
Nose cone and damage of vehicle Figures 91 and 92
2. Premature black power 2 4 8 2. All components of the nose 1 4 4
detachment components 2. Retention testing plan can be
charge ignition cone and payload bay that
2. Loss of payload seen in Section 6.1.3
connect the two entities will be
components
tested and constructed according
to the correct procedures
1. The vehicle may be
damaged or entirely Materials have been chosen based
Improper materials are
Structural failure destroyed upon impact on expected forces and have Solids testing plan can be seen in
selected structural 3 2 6 1 2 3
at touchdown 2. Potential for damage to demonstrated functional Section 6.1.1
strength

2019-20 Critical Design Review

nearby property and capabilities, seen in Section 3.3
people
1. The Launch Manager, Dave
1. 1. Improper 1. Vehicle and payload Dave Brunsting will be the only
Brunsting, will inspect all motors
installation of motor sustain considerable individual to install any motor or
prior to launch
Motor explosion casing damages during flight 2 4 8 energetics and will obey NAR/TRA 1 4 4
2. Dave Brunsting will install the
2. Imperfections within 2. People nearby are guidelines and procedures when
motor prior to launch to ensure it
the motor potentially injured doing so
is installed correctly
1. Testing and construction
1. The vehicle will be constructed
Flight path becomes procedures will be written for the
Fins are improperly using proper procedures
Fin integrity unpredictable and fins and followed by all members
connected the vehicle 2 3 6 2. Proper techniques will be used 1 3 3
failure vehicle does not follow involved in each task
body when attaching fins to the fin can
the intended trajectory 2. Fin material selection can be
114

and vehicle body

seen in Section 3.3.6
 University of Notre Dame
1. Fins are not Vehicle will move along
manufactured to an unintended flight path
Fins will be composed of strong,
specifications. potentiallly damaging Construction and testing
lightwieght material. All adhesives
2. Fins are not made of property and procedures will be written and
and construction techniques will
the correct material. endangering bystanders. approved by a safety team
Fin Flutter 1 4 4 ensure the fins are secruely 1 2 2
3. Fins and fin can are Vehicle may impact the member, as well as team
attached to the vehicle body. Fins
not adequately secured ground in a nonoptimal leadership. Fin design will meet
will be selected to ensure a
to the vehicle due to fashion further requirements.
mininum stability margin of 2.0.
failures of adhesives or endangering porperty
load-bearing bulkheads. and bystanders.
Poor construction Vehicle flight path 1. The solids testing plan can be
Transition
techniques lead to the becomes unpredictable, Centering rings and adhesives are seen in Section 6.1.1.
section
separation of centering and the payload section 2 4 8 specifically chosen to meet 2. Material selections for the 1 4 4
separates from
rings from the vehicle may sustain considerable anticipated forces transition section can be seen in
body
body damages Section 3.3.3
Potential damages to
Carelessness of team No less than 5 team members will
payload and vehicle
members when be involved on transporting the
Dropping components, especially Team members will use great care
transporting the vehicle 2 2 4 vehicle, and an additional 1 4 4
vehicle exterior components when transporting the vehicle
to and from launch member will aid in ensuring a
such as fins or the nose
destinations clear path for transportation
cone
1. Parachutes separate
from the vehicle body
and fails to sufficiently
slow the descent of the
vehicle
1. Parachutes anchored
2. The twist-and-lock
to bulkheads create too 1. Bulkhead and twist-and-lock
mechanism will fail and
much stress for the mechanisms are carefully selected 1. The solids testing plan can be
Shearing of allow the CRAM to move
adhesives securing them for anticipated forces, seen in seen in Section 3.4.1
bulkheads and within the body tube
to the body tube 3 3 9 section 3.4.1 2. Construction procedures will 1 3 3
twist-and-lock 3. The parachutes may
2. Materials strength of 2. Construction procedures will be available in the workshop

2019-20 Critical Design Review

mechanisms tangle, leading to a more
twist-and-lock be followed to ensure proper during construction
rapid descent speed than
mechanism is connections
expected
insufficient
4. Separated vehicle body
sections may collide in
air, leading to damages to
the vehicle body and/or
the payload
115
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.2.3 Air Braking System

Table 43: FMEA- Air Braking System

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. Procedures for properly

constructing/testing circuits will
1. Broken circuits from be created and properly adhered
Shutdown of the 1. Checking of the battery, circuit
poor construction to by all members
electrical system and loss connections, and electronic
Power failure in 2. Damage from launch 2. Procedures for properly
of control of ABS tabs 3 4 12 components before launch 2. 2 4 8
electrical system forces charging and checking the
causing an overshoot of Only fully charged batteries will
3. Batteries are batteries will be created and
target apogee be used
insufficiently charged adhered to by all members
3. Connections will be tested prior
to launch with a multimeter
1. Improper installation Improper data Testing plans for ABS hardware
Incorrect or and programming of the transmission to flight The ABS code and electrical and software will be implemented
unavailable sensors computer that causes 3 4 12 components of the launch vehicle and utilized to verify the integrity 1 4 4
sensor data 2. Loss of power to the improper deployment of will be tested prior to launch. of flight hardware before launch,
electrical system ABS shown in Section 6.1.6
1. Improper coding of the Testing plans for ABS hardware
Improper ABS not fully deploying The code for the system and
electronic system and software will be implemented
command or partially deploying the components will be tested before
2. Unexpected errors 2 4 8 and utilized to verify the integrity 1 4 4
signals from flaps, causing loss of launch in a proper testing
when computing live of flight hardware before launch,
microcontroller proper ABS functionality environment
sensor data shown in Section 6.1.6
1. The mechanical system will be
The ABS gets stuck open 1. Materials are chosen based on

2019-20 Critical Design Review

Broken 1. Material strength is tested prior to launch, shown in
or closed and causes the simulations and calculations,
mechanical insufficient Section 6.1.6
launch vehicle to not 2 4 8 shown in Section 3.7.3.3 1 4 4
system for the 2. Improper construction 2. Construction procedures will
reach or pass the targeted 2. Construction procedures will
ABS techniques be available in the workshop prior
altitude be written prior to construction
to construction
Drag tabs are unable to
Loss of 1. Material strength is deploy or break off the 1. Materials are chosen based on 1. Drag tab analysis can be seen in
structural insufficient outer casing of the simulations and calculations Section 3.7.3.2 2. Construction
2 4 8 1 4 4
integrity of drag 2. Improper construction launch vehicle, causing 2. Construction procedures will procedures will be available in the
tabs techniques the complete loss of the be written prior to construction workshop prior to construction
ABS system
116
 University of Notre Dame
The ABS fails to properly
Shearing of deploy and potentially 1. Materials chosen for
screws or 1. Material strength is shifts within the body 1. Materials are chosen based on integration components can be
bulkheads that insufficient tube of the launch simulations and calculations seen in Section 3.7.2.1
3 5 15 1 5 5
anchor the ABS 2. Improper construction vehicle, causing severe 2. Construction procedures will 2. Construction procedures will
within the techniques changes to the mass be written prior to construction be available in the workshop prior
launch vehicle distribution of the launch to construction.
vehicle

2019-20 Critical Design Review

117
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.2.4 Recovery

Table 44: FMEA- Recovery

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. See Section 3.8.3 for redundant

charge layout
1. Vehicle impacts 1. The black powder charges and
2. See Section 6.1.2 for black
Vehicle 1. Black powder charges ground at high velocity altimeters are triple redundant 2.
powder testing
separation are insufficient for damaging vehicle and/or Each black powder charge and
3. Altimeters chosen for full scale
failure at apogee separation personnel 2 4 8 altimeter combination are 1 4 4
were verified in the subscale flight
or at main 2. Avionics are not turned 2. Delayed ignition could independent of the other three
as seen in Section 3.6.3. 4. Black
deployment on or malfunction. result in large forces that 3. Altimeters are supplied from
powder charge calculations are
could damage the vehicle trusted vendors; see section 3.8.2
summarized in Section 3.8.3.1
and presented fully in Appendix A
1. Improperly sized
1. Calculations and simulations
parachute
were performed to determine
2. Parachute is deployed 1. Calculations and simulations
proper parachute size
at an improper time for parachute size can be seen in
Vehicle impacts ground 2. Altimeters are trusted models
Parachute fails 3. Parachute is tangled Section 3.9.4
at high velocity damaging and redundant
to reduce and does not deploy 2 4 8 2. Altimeter selection and 2 2 4
vehicle and/or injuring 3. Parachute folding is practiced
descent velocity correctly redundancy is in Section 3.8.2
personnel and verified by recovery lead
4. Black powder charges 3. Altimeter testing can be seen in
4. Nomex cloth and insulation is
damage some or all of the Section 6.1.2.
used to protect the parachute,
parachute upon
shown in Section 3.8.1
deployment at apogee
1. Vehicle impacts

2019-20 Critical Design Review

Parachute 1. Structural components will be 1. Solids testing for structural
1. Component failure due ground at high velocity
separation from 2 4 8 rated for the anticipated forces components can be seen in 1 4 4
to stresses damaging vehicle and/or
vehicle with a FOS Section 3.4.1
personnel
1. Vehicle could
encounter unexpected 1. Altimeter selection can be seen
1. Altimeters are from a trusted
1. Parachute deploys obstructions out of the in 3.8.2 and testing can be seen in
Vehicle drift vendor
earlier than expected. drift radius causing Section 6.1.2
exceeds allowed 3 2 6 2. Parachute sizing is based on 2 2 4
2. Parachute is an personnel or property 2. Parachute sizing calculations
drift radius multiple calculations and
improper size. damage and simulations can be seen in
simulations.
2. Payload mission Section 3.9.4
success is compromised.
118
 University of Notre Dame
1. Vehicle shears causing 1. Altimeter selection can be seen
Vehicle 1. Altimeters are from a trusted
1. Altimeter malfunction the interior components in 3.8.2 and testing can be seen in
separation vendor
2. Black powder ignites to be damaged 2 4 8 Section 6.1.2 1 4 4
during motor 3. Black powder and altimeters
prematurely 2. Personnel could be 2. Black powder testing can be
burn are tested
harmed seen in Section 6.1.2
1. CRAM is manufactured with
1. Internal components
CRAM separates 1. Material strength is birch wood 1. CRAM material selection and
of vehicle shear
from vehicle insufficient for main and 2 4 8 2. CRAM locking mechanism has analysis can be seen in Section 1 4 4
2. Vehicle impacts
body drogue parachute loads been a success in NDRT’s past 3.8.3.
ground at high velocity
launches

2019-20 Critical Design Review

119
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.2.5 Payload Vehicles

Table 45: FMEA- Payload Vehicles

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. LiPo batteries on the

1. Batteries will be checked prior
UAV or the Rover vibrate Payload vehicles, nose 1. The LSRS Pre-Launch Checklist
to launch
during flight or are cone, and payload bay can be seen in Section 4.1
Fire 2 4 8 2. Batteries will be housed so that 1 4 4
punctured are damaged or 2. The UAV and Rover design can
they are unlikely to become
2. Wires within the UAV destroyed be seen in Sections 5.4 and 5.5.
damaged
or rover systems short
1. Team member fails to 1. A pre-lauch checklist will be
1. The LSRS Pre-Launch Checklist
turn the power on UAV is not able to deploy followed to ensure electronics are
UAV power can be seen in Section 4.1
2. Electronics failure or function, resulting in 2 4 8 set up properly 1 4 4
failure 2. Batteries not in use will be
3. Battery insufficiently mission failure 2. Only fully charged batteries will
charged
charged be used
1. Team member fails to 1. A pre-lauch checklist will be
Rover is not able to 1. The LSRS Pre-Launch Checklist
turn the power on followed to ensure electronics are
Rover power deploy or function, can be seen in Section 4.1.
2. Electronics failure 2 4 8 set up properly 1 4 4
failure resulting in mission 2. Batteries not in use will be
3. Battery insufficiently 2. Only fully charged batteries will
failure charged
charged be used
1. Calculations will be made to
1. Weight of UAV is too
determine the amount of weight 1. Weight allocations can be seen
great for stable flight
UAV is not able to fly needed and the sustainable flight in Section 5.4.1.
2. Wires on the UAV
UAV Unable to correctly and likely time 2. The LSRS Pre-Launch Checklist
detach and disconnect 3 4 12 1 4 4
Operate results in a mission 2. Wires will be securely attached can be seen in Section 4.1
the power supply

2019-20 Critical Design Review

failure and checked with test flights 3. The test plan for retention can
3. UAV is unable to
3. UAV deployment system will be be seen in Section 6.1.3
detach from the platform
tested prior to launch
UAV or Rover battery is 1. Battery life calculations can be
1. Battery life will be calculated to
not capable of powering seen in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.5.2.
The UAV or Rover cannot ensure the mission can be
Battery failure the respective system for 2 4 8 2. Testing plans for the UAV and 1 4 4
complete mission completed
the duration of the Rover can be seen in Sections
2. Each system will be tested
mission 6.1.5 and 6.1.4.
120
 University of Notre Dame
1. Transmitters are
functioning at an
1. All transmitting frequencies will
improper frequency and
be carefully chosen to avoid 1. Transmitting frequencies can
are disrupted by other UAV is unable able to
Radio overlap with other teams or be seen in Section 5.4.3.3.
nearby transmitters become beacon for Rover
transmission 1 4 4 nearby signals 2. The material surrounding the 1 2 2
2. Transmitters lose and the Rover will be
signal disruption 2. The material selected payload bay is fiberglass which is
signal due to a shielding unable to reach the target
surrounding the transmitters RF transparent.
material, such as carbon
must be RF transparent
fiber, inhibiting signal
transmissions.
1. The retention system will be 1. The testing plan for the
1. Rover component
Rover movement designed to constrain the rover in retention system can be seen in
breaks due to impact Rover is unable to
mechanism 2 4 8 all three axes. 6.1.3. 1 4 4
2. Wires on the Rover function correctly
failure 2. Wires will be securely fastened 2. The pre-launch checklist for the
detach
and checked prior to launch. LSRS can be seen in Section 4.1.
1. Sample retrieval
1. The sample retrieval system
components are
will be made of robust materials. 1. The sample retrieval system
damaged or break upon
Rover is unable to 2. Tests will be conducted to verify materials and rationale can be
Sample retrieval impact or due to a
retrieve a sufficient the maximum retrieval force of seen in Section 5.5.3.
mechanism high-force event during 2 3 6 1 2 2
amount of the provided the system. 2. The testing plan for the sample
failure flight
sample. 3. The UAV and Rover will have RF retrieval system can be seen in
2. Sample retrieval
transparent materials for the Section 6.1.4 .
mechanism is unable to
deployment signal
support a sufficient load.
UAV detection algorithm Rover has no target site to Multiple detection algorithms will The testing plan for target
Target detection
does not recognize or approach, resulting in 2 4 8 be compared to find the most detection can be seen in Section 1 4 4
failure
encounter a sample site. mission failure. efficient and successful. 6.1.5.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

121
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.2.6 Payload Deployment and Integration

Table 46: FMEA - Payload Deployment and Integration

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

Vehicles are unable to 1. Black powder quantities are 1. Black powder calculations can
Black Powder charges do
Nose cone exit the payload bay and based on calculations. be seen in Appendix A.
not generate sufficient 2 4 8 1 4 4
removal failure consequently cannot 2. Black powder will be tested 2. Black powder test plans can be
force.
complete the mission. prior to launch. seen in 6.1.2.
The black powder
Vehicles are unable to
charges generate less 1. Black powder quantities are 1. Black powder calculations can
Nose cone fully exit the nose cone
force than required to based on calculations. be seen in Appendix A.
removal partial and are unable to orient 2 3 6 1 3 3
sufficiently separate the 2. Black powder will be tested 2. Black powder test plans can be
failure to complete the task. The
nose cone from the prior to launch. seen in Section 6.1.2.
mission is a failure.
vehicle body.
1. The vehicle descends 1. Material selection for the
Damage from
at unintentionally high 1. Vehicles are unable to 1. The retention system is deployment system can be seen in
vehicle
speeds. function as intended. designed to be robust. Section 5.3.1.
impacting 2 4 8 1 4 4
2. Supports securing the 2. Vehicles may not be 2. The retention system will be 2. Testing plans for the retention
ground at high
payload do not function able to deploy. tested. system can be seen in Section
velocity
as intended. 6.1.3.
1. The securing 1. The mechanism design can be
mechanism fails to keep Vehicles are not able to seen in Section 5.3.
1. The securing mechanism will
the vehicles from complete the mission 2. Construction procedures will
Premature be designed to retain the vehicles
deploying at the incorrect successfully due to be available in the workshop prior
vehicle 1 4 4 in all three axes. 1 3 3
time. damages to essential to construction.
deployment 2. Construction procedures will

2019-20 Critical Design Review

2. Bulkheads are not components of the 3. The testing plan for the
be written prior to construction.
installed into the payload vehicles. retention system can be seen in
bay correctly. Section 6.1.3.
1. Vehicles are unable to
perform the mission
The black powder system within the established 1. Black powder quantities are 1. Black powder calculations can
Delayed vehicle mechanism takes more time constraints based on calculations be seen in Appendix A.
1 4 4 1 3 3
deployment time than intended to 2. The batteries powering 2. Black powder will be tested 2. Black powder test plans can be
operate. the vehicles likely run out prior to launch. seen in Section 6.1.3.
of power before
completing the mission.
1. Vehicle platform does
Orientation not have sufficient room Vehicle is not properly 1. Testing plans for the
122

1. The orientation system will be

correction to rotate oriented, leading to 2 4 8 orientation system can be seen in 1 4 4
extensively tested prior to launch
failure 2. The platform cannot mission failure Section 6.1.3.
move because of friction.
 University of Notre Dame
1. The payload lead will confirm
1. The pin connection from the
pin attachments before launch as
Vehicle platform Vehicles experience more solenoid will be checked prior to
1. Pin mechanism is not seen in the Launch Procedure for
or rover forces than expected, launch
properly set 2 3 6 the LSRS. 1 3 3
becomes which could lead to 2. The pin material has been
2. Pin breaks 2. The pins are made of stainless
unconstrained damage selected to withstand forces
steel for its durability and strength
during flight.
as see in Section 5.3.
1. Construction procedures will
Vehicles experience more
UAV not 1. Supports will be carefully be available in the workshop prior
Supports either break or forces than expected,
properly secure 2 3 6 constructed following to construction. 1 3 4
are not attached correctly which could lead to
to platform construction procedures. 2. Rention testing plans can be
damage
seen in Section 6.1.3.
1. Sled material strength
is insufficient for forces
The UAV vehicle is unable
2. Sled connection 1. Sled material selection and FEA
to exit the payload bay 1. The sled is material is sufficient
cannot withstand forces can be seen in Section 5.3.1.
UAV sled failure and is therefore unable to 2 3 6 for its application 1 3 3
during flight 2. The retention testing plans can
deploy to locate the 2. The retention will be tested
3. Sled connection be seen in Section 6.1.3.
target.
cannot withstand forces
upon landing

2019-20 Critical Design Review

123
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.2.7 Launch Support Equipment

Table 47: FMEA- Launch Support Equipment

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. The RSO will verify that launch

1. Launch equipment will be set equipment is properly set up in
1. Launch equipment is up according to NAR standards accordance to Section 9 of NAR’s
Launch rail is at
improperly set up 2. Vehicle does not reach 2. The NDRT mentor and RSO High Powered Rocketry Safety
an improper 2 3 6 1 3 3
Vehicle is improperly apogee recommendations will be Code
angle
placed on launch pad followed when setting up the 2. The vehicle set up will be
vehicle verified by the NDRT mentor
before launch
NDRT will ensure that the clubs
Launch
1. Wire connection or 1. NDRT will use an official the team launches with are
controller fails to Motor does not ignite 2 2 4 1 2 2
controller is faulty Rocketry club’s controllers reliable and have a consistent
ignite motor
record of successful launches
The NDRT mentor along with the
Launch ignition
1. Launch controller unit Premature motor ignition 1. All launch equipment will be local Rocketry club will assist in
wires are live 2 4 8 1 4 4
is faulty may injure personnel inspected prior to use inspecting equipment prior to set
during set up
up

2019-20 Critical Design Review

124
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.3 Environmental Hazards

4.2.3.1 Environmental Hazards to Vehicle

Table 48: Environmental Hazards to Vehicle

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

Flight readiness will be evaluated

the day of launch after carefully
Potentially severe water monitoring the weather and
damage to electrical following the NAR Weather Safety NDRT will comply with NAR
Rain Local weather patterns circuits, batteries, 3 5 15 Code, which states that launch regulations in regards to 1 5 5
payload, and the launch vehicles will not be launched into launching in inclement weather
vehicle motor clouds, unsafe weather
conditions, or in winds exceeding
20 miles per hour.
Could damage the
Flight readiness will be evaluated
electrical components,
the day of launch after carefully NDRT will comply with NAR
batteries, payload, and
Lightning Local weather patterns 2 4 8 monitoring the weather and regulations in regards to 1 4 4
change the course of the
following the NAR Weather Safety launching in inclement weather
launch vehicle after
Code
launch
Potentially severe
structural damage in the Flight readiness will be evaluated
event of the launch the day of launch after carefully NDRT will comply with NAR
High Winds Local weather patterns vehicle falling over, as 3 4 12 monitoring the weather and regulations in regards to 1 4 4

2019-20 Critical Design Review

well as launch trajectory following the NAR Weather Safety launching in inclement weather
issues with very powerful Code
winds
Potentially severe water Flight readiness will be evaluated
damage to electrical the day of launch after carefully NDRT will comply with NAR
Snow Local weather patterns circuits, batteries, 2 4 8 monitoring the weather and regulations in regards to 1 4 4
payload, and the launch following the NAR Weather Safety launching in inclement weather.
vehicle motor Code
Flight readiness will be evaluated
Potential damage to the
the day of launch after carefully NDRT will comply with NAR
Extreme battery and weakening of
Local weather patterns 2 4 8 monitoring the weather and regulations in regards to 1 4 4
Temperatures bonding materials within
following the NAR Weather Safety launching in inclement weather
the launch vehicle
125

Code
 University of Notre Dame
Flight readiness will be evaluated
Turbulent air that could
the day of launch after carefully NDRT will comply with NAR
make launch and
Low Cloud Cover Local weather patterns 3 2 6 monitoring the weather and regulations in regards to 1 2 2
recovery operations
following the NAR Weather Safety launching in inclement weather
difficult
Code
Could affect the bonding Flight readiness will be evaluated
materials of the launch the day of launch after carefully NDRT will comply with NAR
High Humidity
Local weather patterns vehicle as well as the 4 4 16 monitoring the weather and regulations in regards to 1 4 4
Levels
launch vehicle following the NAR Weather Safety launching in inclement weather
propulsion material Code
Potentially severe
Flight readiness will be evaluated
damage to the electronics
the day of launch after carefully NDRT will comply with NAR
UV exposure No cloud cover over and sensors within the
3 4 12 monitoring the weather and regulations in regards to 1 4 4
from the Sun launch area launch vehicle if
following the NAR Weather Safety launching in inclement weather
significant exposure
Code
occurs
Potentially severe water Flight readiness will be evaluated
damage to electrical the day of launch after carefully NDRT will comply with NAR
Hail/Sleet Local weather patterns circuits, batteries, 2 4 8 monitoring the weather and regulations in regards to 1 4 4
payload, and the launch following the NAR Weather Safety launching in inclement weather.
vehicle motor Code
Could interfere with the
Local Terrain Team leads and the Launch
Local terrain and the course of the launch Closely monitoring local natural
and Man-Made Manager will inspect the launch
natural environment vehicle and cause 2 5 10 topography and man made 1 5 5
Structure site to confirm that it is safe to
around the launch site destruction of the launch structures near the launch area
Interference launch
vehicle
Potential structural
Team leads and the Launch
Local animal population damage to the launch Closely monitoring local animal
Animal Manager will inspect the launch
in and around the launch vehicle and potentially 2 3 6 movements and local species in 1 3 3
Interference site to confirm that it is safe to
site lethal damage to the the launch area
launch
animal

2019-20 Critical Design Review

126
 University of Notre Dame
4.2.3.2 Vehicle Hazard to Environment

Table 49: Vehicle Hazard to Environment

Probability

Probability
Severity

Severity

Post
Pre
Hazard Cause Outcome Mitigations Verification

1. All members involved in

1. Cause skin, eye, and
sanding will be certified prior to
respiratory tract irritation
Fiberglass Quantity of styrene gas emitted entering lab and will wear proper
Sanding of bulkhead or to surrounding
particulates 3 3 9 has negligible effects on equipment 3 1 3
other fiberglass materials individuals
(styrene gas) environment 2. Sanding will be conducting in
2. Emission of toxins
ventilated area and the workshop
depletes air quality
vacuum will be utilized
1. Motor produces CO2
emissions when ignited 1. CO2 emissions from the motor
Contribute to greenhouse Motors and black powder charges
Excessive carbon 2.The black powder are negligible
effect and increase global 5 1 5 will be inspected by the Launch 4 1 4
dioxide emission charges in the recovery 2. CO2 emissions from black
warming Manager
system produces CO2 powder charges are negligible
emissions when ignited
1. Leads will survey the land to
ensure the launchpad is placed
Hydrogen Ammonium perchlorate HCl reacts with water to Launches will take place away
away from water sources
chloride motor produces form hydrochloric acid, 4 1 4 from water sources in order to 2 1 2
2. Motors will be disposed of
emmission hydrogen chloride contaminating water prevent contamination
according to SDS and local
standards
Components Wildlife could potentially Exterior and interior of launch
Improper retention of The Vehicle Pre-Launch Checklist
come loose from ingest or be harmed by 3 3 9 vehicle will be inspected prior to 1 3 3
components can be seen in Section 4.1

2019-20 Critical Design Review

vehicle materials launch
Batteries will be inspected by a
1. Absorption of acid Batteries are housed in battery
Defective batteries that team lead or the Safety Officer and
contaminates soil bag when not in use and are
Battery leakage fail to enclose the acid in 2 4 8 if a defect is found, the battery will 1 4 4
2. Pollution of inspected by leads before and
its appropriate space be disposed of according to the
groundwater after each use
SDS and local regulation
1. Members involved in spray
painting will be certified prior to
Spray painting is executed in a entering workspace and will wear
Release of toxic
Spray paint on Use of spray paint to ventilated area to reduce proper PPE
emissions into the 4 2 8 4 1 4
vehicle paint exterior of vehicle concentration of air 2. Painting area will be well
atmosphere
contamination ventilated and only contain
personnel participating in
127

painting.
 University of Notre Dame
Plastic waste can be
Wildlife could potentially The workshop will contain a
produced by 3D printing Disposal of plastics according to
Plastic Waste ingest or be harmed by 5 2 10 specific bin for recycling certain 4 1 4
and other construction SDS and local standards
plastic plastics in order to reduce waste
procedures
The workshop will contain a
Excessive wire scraps as a Wildlife could potentially
Wire will be disposed of according specific bin for recycling certain
Wire Waste result of electrical ingest or be harmed by 5 2 10 4 1 4
to SDS and local standards electronic components in order to
component construction wire waste
reduce waste
Excess materials Members involved in soldering
Soldering releases toxic Proper ventilation will be used to
Soldering improperly disposed of will be certified. Disposal will be
that can contaminate the 4 2 8 negate release of toxins into 4 1 4
Material Waste during the soldering of monitored according to SDS and
air quality environment
wires local guidelines
1. Damage to
surrounding grass 1. Bring appropriate extinguishing 1. A fire extinguisher must be
1. Motor burnout
2. Damage to animals’ devices on site of launch available at each launch
Grass fire 2. Electrical components 2 3 6 1 3 3
natural habitats 2. Leads inspect wire connections 2. Pre-launch checklists can be
short circuit
3. Greenhouse emissions and electronics before launch seen in Section 4.1.
as a result of combustion
1. Launch equipment will be 1. Simulations confirming vehicle
1. High wind speeds
inspected stability can be seen in Section 3.9
knock vehicle out of Damage to private
Stability of the vehicle will be 2. The recovery system will
Damage to expected trajectory property and/or damage
3 4 12 confirmed through simulations employ three redundant 2 4 8
nearby property 2. Recovery fails to power lines or
and testing altimeters and black powder
deliver vehicle safely to environment
2. Leads ensure redundant and charges that will be tested prior to
the ground
reliable systems for recovery launch, shown in Section 3.8.2
Excessive noise Noise could harm
Personnel will stand at least 300 ft.
generation from the wildlife, bystanders, and Impact will be temporary and will
Noise Impacts 1 4 4 away from launch site as required 1 2 2
launch vehicle’s motor on potentially vibrate not exceed EPA regulations
by the NAR
launch structures

2019-20 Critical Design Review

128
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

5 Technical Design: Lunar Sample Retrieval System

5.1 Overview

The Notre Dame Rocketry Team will design, build, and test a payload system that will
simulate retrieving lunar ice for the 2019-2020 NASA Student Launch Competition. The system
will be comprised of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) that will locate the sample and a
Rover that will retrieve and transport the sample.

5.1.1 Mission Success Criteria

The payload must accomplish 8 main tasks: (1) withstand forces experienced during
vehicle flight and recovery, (2) activate remotely via a signal from the ground station, (3) orient
and deploy, (4) locate the closest Competition Future Excursion Area (CFEA), (5) transmit the
coordinates of the closest CFEA, (6) traverse to the sample area, (7) retrieve and secure a 10 mL
lunar sample, and (8) transport the sample 10 ft away.
The mission will be considered successful if it meets all Payload and Safety Requirements
outlined in the 2020 NASA Student Launch Handbook and the following criteria:
P.MS.1 The payload shall be powered off until the launch vehicle has safely landed and has
been approved for remote-activation by the RSO.
P.MS.2 The payload shall remain retained inside the vehicle during vehicle flight and recovery.
P.MS.3 The payload shall self orient to within 5°of its upright position for deployment.
P.MS.4 The payload shall deploy from inside the launch vehicle from a position on the ground.
P.MS.5 The UAV shall locate, fly to, and land at the closest FEA.
P.MS.6 The UAV shall send its coordinates to the Rover and activate the Rover.
P.MS.7 The Rover shall traverse to the UAV coordinates and locate the sample area.
P.MS.8 The Rover shall recover and secure a 10 mL lunar ice sample.
P.MS.9 The Rover shall move 10 linear ft away from the sample area.

5.1.2 Summary of Payload

The Lunar Sample Retrieval System (LSRS) is comprised of three main systems: the UAV, the
Rover, and the Retention Orientation and Deployment (ROD) system. The UAV is integrated
with the Target Detection subsystem and the Rover is integrated with the Sample Retrieval
subsystem. The LSRS will remain inactive during vehicle flight and recovery. To facilitate
deployment of the UAV and Rover, the nose cone of the vehicle will be jettisoned at 400 ft
above ground level and will be attached to the vehicle via a shock chord. See Section 5.3.2 for
nose cone ejection details. The ROD system will be able to freely rotate when the nose cone is
ejected and will properly orient the system due to an off-center CG. Upon successful recovery,
the Ground Station will transmit an initiation signal to the Rover and initiate the deployment
sequence. The ROD system will retract the solenoid pins allowing the Rover to translate and
tow the UAV out of the payload bay. The UAV will take off, search for, locate, and land at the

129
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

nearest CFEA. The coordinates of the CFEA will be transmitted to the Rover and the Rover will
travel to the coordinates. When the Rover is within 15 ft of the coordinates, the Rover will use
computer vision to locate the sample on the CFEA and translate onto the sample. The sample
retrieval system will deploy the Archimedes screw into the sample and collect a 10 mL sample.
When the Archimedes screw has been retracted, the Rover will translate 10 linear ft from the
sample and complete the mission.

5.2 Layout

5.2.1 Full Assembly

The LSRS is located in the fore section of the vehicle. Figure 83 shows renderings of the
complete LSRS within the payload bay. The LSRS is 16 in. long and there is a 7 in. gap between
the nose cone bulkhead and the fore bulkhead of the payload bay. This space is used as a
pressure chamber when jettisoning the nose cone during recovery. Additionally, the retaining
platform will be able to freely rotate within the payload bay due to a 0.5 in. clearance between
the platform and the inner wall of the payload bay. The UAV and UAV sled are located in the aft
section of the payload bay so the Rover can tow the UAV out of the payload bay. A total weight
of 111 oz was allocated to the LSRS. A summary of the weight distribution of each system is
shown in Table 50.

(a) Fore End (b) Aft End

Figure 83: CAD Model of full LSRS within the Payload Bay

Table 50: Summary of LSRS subsystem weight

System Weight
UAV 17 oz
Rover 41 oz
Sample Retrieval 2 oz
Deployment 49 oz
Total 109 oz

130
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

5.2.2 Launch Vehicle Integration

The LSRS is integrated into the launch vehicle using a rail and sled system to satisfy NASA
Requirement 4.2. The system is comprised of two platforms shown in figures 85 and 86. This
grants easy access to the payload and ensures the proper placement of the UAV and Rover into
the ROD system. An exploded view of the vehicle integration can be seen in Figure 84. The
stationary platform is permanently attached to the aft bulkhead using a nut and bolt. The
sliding platform attaches to the stationary platform by inserting the two “rails" of the
stationary platform into the respective slots on the sliding platform. When the sliding platform
is fully placed on the stationary platform, two nuts and bolts are placed in the fore section of
the platforms to secure them together.

Figure 84: LSRS Exploded View of Vehicle Integration

131
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 85: Drawing of Stationary Platform

Figure 86: Drawing of Sliding Platform

5.3 ROD System

The Retention, Orientation, and Deployment (ROD) System is a critical component for the
success of the LSRS payload. The ROD System combines retention, orientation, and
deployment in one mechanism to efficiently use the space within the payload bay and to
create a simple, elegant system that fulfills multiple requirements. The system is integrated

132
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

with the sled and rail platform system and is shown in Figure 87.

Figure 87: ROD System

5.3.1 Payload Retention

The retention of the LSRS during vehicle flight is accomplished using four solenoids that are
friction fit into the sliding platform of the sled and rail integration system as seen in Figure 88.
Two solenoids are used to restrict motion of the Rover and are inserted into holes within the
Rover body, restricting motion in all directions. The other two solenoids are inserted into two
holes within the UAV Sled, restricting motion of the sled in all directions. The landing struts of
the UAV slide through two holes in the UAV sled allowing the bottom platform of the UAV frame
to rest on the sled. The UAV is prevented from lifting out of the sled during flight by two pins in
the aft section of the sliding platform as seen in Figure 89. These pins go through the rear struts
of the UAV preventing any translation of the UAV out of the sled.

(a) Assembled (b) Exploded

Figure 88: CAD Model of Full LSRS within the Payload Bay

133
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 89: UAV Sled

The solenoid for the retention of the payload is the Adafruit Medium Push-Pull Solenoid
shown in Figure 90. This solenoid was chosen for its long throw length and large diameter pin
as well as the other parameters outlined in Table 51. The pin of the solenoid is made of stainless
steel and will withstand forces experienced during flight and successfully retain the UAV and
Rover. The solenoid also provides a mechanical fail-safe for the system. When no power is
running to the solenoid, a linear spring provides an outward force on the pin that holds the
pin in the extended position. This force will ensure the pin remains extended into the holes
of the Rover body and UAV sled during vehicle flight and recovery. This design satisfies NASA
Requirements 4.3.7.1-4.

Table 51: Solenoid Parameters

Parameter Value
Dimensions 1.02 x 0.98 x 0.86 in.
Weight 2.4 oz
Throw Length 0.39 in.
Pin Diameter 0.27 in.
Voltage 6V Figure 90: Retention Solenoid

To ensure that the various components involved in the retention system will withstand all
forces experienced during vehicle flight and recovery, FEA studies were performed. The
maximum force experienced by the retention system is during main deployment, and a 37 g
acceleration was estimated from vehicle flight simulations in Section 3.9. This estimate was
used when conducting the FEA studies. Figures 91 - 93 show the results of the FEA studies.

134
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 91: FEA of Sliding Platform

Figure 92: FEA of Stationary Platform

135
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

(a) UAV Sled (b) Rover Body

Figure 93: FEA of Primary LSRS Vehicles

The results of the FEA studies are summarized in Table 52. Factors of Safety were calculated
for ASA plastic using a yield stress of 5,000 psi. The lowest factor of safety was 3.20 for the Rover
Body. These results confirmed a robust design that will succeed in retaining the LSRS during
vehicle flight.

Table 52: Finite Element Analysis of the Payload Retention Summary

Component Material Max Stress (psi) Factor of Safety

Sliding Platform ASA 1051 4.75
Stationary Platform ASA 1178 4.24
UAV Sled ASA 749.2 6.67
Rover Body ASA 1561 3.20

5.3.1.1 Retention Electronics

The retention of the Rover and UAV consists of solenoids which must remain locked until
deployment has been approved by the RSO. In order to control this system, a simple processor
will receive a control signal from the Rover system initiated by a radio transmission to the rover.
The retention processor will then trigger the solenoids to retract.
The Adafruit Itsy Bitsy 3 V microcontroller board was selected due to its low profile, 3 V logic
matching the rover’s 3 V logic, and ample GPIO pins for connecting the solenoids. Because the
solenoids can draw up to 1 A of current, transistor switches must be used to control the current
into the solenoids. The GPIO pins of the Itsy Bitsy will be used to set the gates of the transistors
high or low, allowing 5 V from an L7805 regulator to flow into the solenoids. A 7.4 V LiPo battery
will power the circuit as it can safely supply the peak current draws of 1 A per solenoid. The

136
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Itsy Bitsy utilizes an internal voltage regulator while each solenoid will have a dedicated 5 V
regulator. The circuit schematic can be seen in figure 94.

Figure 94: Retention Electrical Schematic

A 3 pin header will connect the Rover and the retention electronics via a quick disconnect
terminal. As the rover drives out of the payload bay, it will pull on the connector which will be
securely fastened to the sliding platform, causing a disconnect. This informs the Itsy Bitsy
processor that the Rover is departing the payload bay. The solenoids will be delayed in
"closing" in order to provide ample time for the Rover to depart; however, the time delay will
be minimized to prevent the solenoid from overheating due to prolonged activation. The
connector will consist of 3 terminals: a common ground, an enable pin, and a trigger pin. The
enable pin will be set high when the rover enters the deployment state, and the trigger pin will
be set high when the deployment command is received. Resistors are included on the rover’s
end of the connection to provide current protection to each processor’s pins.

5.3.2 Nose Cone Ejection

To aid the deployment of the LSRS, the nose cone will be jettisoned from the launch vehicle
at 400 ft. AGL after main deployment has occurred to satsify NASA Requirement 4.3.6. The
system will be located on the fore bulkhead in the payload bay as seen in Figure 95. The fore
bulkhead of the payload bay serves to separate the LSRS from the nose cone, thus creating a
pressure chamber. The bulkhead is pressed against the sliding platform and the aluminum
stopper of the LSRS. A lip on the nose cone contacts the opposite side of the bulkhead and seals
the pressure chamber from the LSRS. A PerfectFlite Stratologger SL100 altimeter was chosen to
ignite the black powder charge due to its current selection in the recovery system. It is powered
by a 3.7 V LiPo battery and the components are secured to the aft side of the bulkhead. A 0.5

137
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

in. PVC pipe is epoxied to the fore section of the bulkhead inside the pressure chamber and will
house the black powder charge. Two 1/8 in. kevlar chords attached to eyebolts on either side of
the bulkhead will tether the nose cone to the payload bay satisfying NASA Requirement 4.4.2.
The kevlar tethers will be epoxied to the inside of the payload bay and the nose cone bulkhead.

(a) Fore (b) Aft

Figure 95: Nose Cone Ejection Assembly

The amount of black powder needed to successfully jettison the nose cone and shear four
2-56 shear pins was calculated in Section 3.8.3.1 of the Recovery System with full detail in
Appendix A. Table 53 summarizes the results of the black powder calculations.

Table 53: Nose Cone Black Powder Ejection Charge Summary

Separation F (l b f ) P (atm) n g (mol gas) M ass 4F (g)

Nose Cone 286 0.387 0.0148 1.0

FEA studies were conducted on the various components involved during the nose cone
jettison event to ensure no damage occurred during the event. From the black powder
calculations, an estimated 286 lbf force was used to verify component integrity during the
jettison event. Figures 96, 97, and 98 show the results of the FEA.

138
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

(a) Fore (b) Aft

Figure 96: Finite Element Analysis of Bulkheads

Figure 98: Finite Element Analysis of Sliding

Platform

Figure 97: Finite Element Analysis of Stability Rod

The results of the FEA studies on the jettison event are summarized in Table 54. Factors of
Safety were calculated for ASA plastic using a yield stress of 5,000 psi, for 6061 Aluminum using
a yield stress of 35,000 psi, and for Garolite G10 using a yield stress of 38,000 psi. The lowest
factor of safety was 4.19 for the Stability Rod. These results confirmed a robust design that will
succeed in withstanding forces experienced during jettisoning the nose cone.

Table 54

Component Material Max Stress (psi) Factor of Safety

Sliding Platform ASA 1121 4.46
Stability Rod 6061 Aluminum 8342 4.19
Fore Bulkhead Garolite G10 7480 5.08

139
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

5.3.3 Orientation

The orientation of the LSRS will be accomplished within the payload bay. The platform the
LSRS is retained to within the payload bay is secured to the aft bulkhead using a nut and bolt.
The bolt is threaded through a flanged bearing that is pressfit into the bulkhead which will allow
the platform and thus the LSRS to freely rotate inside the payload bay. An exploded view of the
orientation system is shown in Figure 99.

(a) Full (b) Exploded

Figure 99: CAD of Orientation System

During vehicle flight, the LSRS will be secured in place by two rectangular stoppers epoxied
to the fore bulkhead. These will fit securely into the corners of the sliding platform as shown
in Figure 100. These stoppers will prevent any rotation of the LSRS during flight and will be
removed during the nose cone jettison event. The LSRS will freely rotate during the remaining
descent and will be correctly oriented once the payload bay has returned to the ground.

Figure 100: CAD of Orientation featuring Stoppers

A FEA study was conducted on the aft bulkhead and the orientation bearing to ensure
reliability of the system. A 260 l b f load was placed on the contact surfaces of the bearing and

140
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

aft bulkhead. This load was conservatively derived from a 37 g acceleration during main
parachute deployment.

Figure 101: FEA of Aft Bulkhead

Figure 102: FEA of Orientation Bearing

After conducting the FEA studies, the aft bulkhead experienced a maximum stress of 28,212
psi and the orientation bearing experienced a maximum stress of 3461 psi. Using a yield stress
of 38,000 psi for Garolite G10 and 50,800 psi for steel, the aft bulkhead had a FOS of 1.35 and the
orientation bearing had a FOS of 14.67. While a FOS of 1.35 is not ideal, the team is confident
the G10 fiber glass bulkhead will withstand forces due to previous experiences. Additionally,
thicker G10 fiber glass can be purchased to increase strength.
To ensure the LSRS will rotate around the orientation bearing, a center of mass calculation
was conducted using Fusion 360 software to verify an off center center of gravity. The results
of the calculation can be seen in Figure 103. From this figure, it can be seen that the LSRS will
have a center of gravity off center from the rotational axis and will properly orient itself during
the recovery of the launch vehicle after jettisoning the nose cone.

Figure 103: LSRS Center of Gravity

5.3.4 UAV and Rover Deployment

Upon successful recovery of the launch vehicle, the Rover and UAV will be free to deploy
through the fore end of the payload bay. The ROD system has been designed to enable the Rover
to freely translate out of the launch vehicle. The Rover will tow the UAV sled as it translates out

141
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

of the payload bay. Once the Rover has towed the sled out of the payload bay, the tow will detach
from the Rover and the UAV will deploy to begin searching for the nearest CFEA. The UAV sled
is shown below in Figure 104.

Figure 104: Drawing of UAV Sled

5.4 UAV

The UAV will autonomously locate the CFEA nearest to the launch vehicle’s landing site and
relay the selected CFEA’s GPS coordinates to the ground station. This approach simulates a
satellite gathering aerial imagery of a celestial body prior to ground exploration.

Figure 105: CAD Model of UAV

5.4.1 Mechanical Design

The frame of the UAV provides a rigid structure and housing for all the UAV components
and electronics and is shown in Figure 106. The frame is made up of two carbon fiber

142
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

platforms separated by a set of six aluminum spacers. The four landing struts of the UAV are
also manufactured out of aluminum. The use of carbon fiber and aluminum that provide a
high strength to weight ratio also minimizes the amount of material used and the overall
weight of the frame. A summary of the weight allocation for the UAV frame is shown in Table
55.

Table 55: Weight Allocation of UAV Frame

Component Quantity Total Weight

Top Platform 1 1.19 oz
Bottom Platform 1 0.97 oz
6-32 Screws 16 0.38 oz.
Platform Spacers 6 0.68 oz
Landing Struts 4 0.39 oz
Total 3.61 oz

(a) Full (b) Exploded

Figure 106: UAV Frame

A drawing showing the dimensions of the frame can be seen in Figure 107. From this
drawing, it can be seen that the UAV meets the dimension requirements outline in
Requirement P.10. With the propellers attached to the top of the frame, the UAV has a
maximum width and length of 5.45 and 4.8 in. which also meets the dimension requirements.
The volume of space between the two platforms will house the battery of the UAV. This
provides a secure housing for the battery and protects the battery during any collisions. Two
through holes are made towards the bottom of the landing struts to allow the retention pins to
retain the UAV in the UAV sled during vehicle flight.

143
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 107: Drawing of UAV Frame

5.4.2 Electrical Design

The UAV is designed around using commercially available electrical components mounted
to a custom carbon fiber frame. It includes all components necessary for autonomous flight and
communication with the ground station as well as a GPS receiver and a video camera. The UAV
receives control signals from the ground station while the camera, GPS, and sensors on-board
the UAV transmit data to the ground station.

Table 56: UAV Components List

Component Selection
Propellers HQ 3020 3" × 2" Propellers
Motors RCX H1304 5000Kv Brushless Motor
ESC Airbot Ori32 BLHeli32 25A 4-in-1 ESC
Battery Lumenier 3S2P 5000mAh Li-ion Battery
Flight Controller Airbot Omnibus F4 Nano V6
RC Receiver TBS Crossfire Nano Rx
Video Transmitter TBS Unify Pro32 Nano 5G8 400mW Transmitter
Video Transmitter Antenna Lumenier AXII 2 Right-Angle Stubby 5.8GHz Antenna
Video Camera Caddx Turbo EOS2 Micro FPV Camera
GPS Module Matek M8Q-5883 GPS Module

The components listed in Table 56 will be used to construct the UAV. The motors and
propellers were selected to output thrust approximately equal to double the weight of the UAV

144
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

at maximum power and output thrust roughly equivalent to the UAV’s weight at peak
efficiency. With a maximum thrust-to-weight ratio of approximately two, the UAV is
sufficiently maneuverable to traverse the recovery area quickly and with the motors’ peak
efficiency located near the speed at which the motors maintain a hover the UAV’s flight time is
maximized. The battery was selected to maximize flight time by maximizing the capacity of
the battery while also keeping the UAV’s weight as close to the thrust generated by the motors
when operating at their peak efficiency.
The flight controller was selected because it is compact and light, it has a built-in
On-Screen Display module that includes sensor data in the video signal, eliminating the need
for a separate telemetry transmitter, and it can support enough sensors with its five UART
connections and an extra I2C connection to support autonomous flight.Furthermore, it is
compatible with Ardupilot flight software, which enables the use of a ground station. The ESCs
must be able to supply enough current to the motors while minimizing mass and mounting
area. The motors can draw up to 18 amps each, so an ESC that can supply 20-25 amps is ideal.
The Airbot Ori32 4-in-1 ESC was selected because it interfaces with the flight controller using
an 8-pin cable rather than soldered wires and because it provides the data about the battery
voltage and the current drawn by the motors as well as simplifying the wiring configuration of
the motors while remaining at approximately the same weight as four individual 20-amp ESCs.
In order to maximize the UAV’s flight time, the flight controller will be programmed to wait
in an idle state until an enable signal is received from the controller. In this state, current draw
to components besides the flight controller is negligible and flight controller current is reduced
due to being in an idle state. The ESC, which represents the greatest potential current draw,
will not be actively drawing current since it will not be receiving commands from the flight
controller during this time.
In compliance with requirement P.12, which establishes a target flight time of 10 minutes,
the UAV is projected to have a hover time of just over 15 minutes. The electronics draw about
two amps and the motors when hovering draw about four amps each, for a total current draw of
approximately 18 amps while hovering. Using a 5000mAh battery, the UAV can hover for about
16.7 minutes before the battery is depleted. The UAV’s flight time will be lower than its hover
time so the flight time will be measured when the UAV is ready to fly.
The UAV will maintain two connections with the ground station for the duration of its flight,
from the time it is powered on at deployment to the its retrieval after the successful
completion of the mission. The UAV carries a radio transmitter which maintains a 5.8GHz
connection for the camera feed and sensor data as well as a radio receiver which receives
control signals from the ground station. The 5.8GHz connection’s baud rate is sufficient to
carry the video feed transmitted from the UAV to the ground station, while the 915MHz
connection requires less power to maintain communications between the UAV and the ground
station at the same distance, which reduces energy consumption on board the UAV and
improves reliability of the connection while complying with Requirement 2.22.9, which limits
the maximum power of any single transmitter to 250mW.

145
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 108: UAV Electrical Schematic

5.4.3 Target Detection

The Target Detection system is responsible for aiding the UAV in finding the location of the
Competition Future Excursion Area (CFEA). When the UAV deploys from the rocket, it will fly
up and navigate to the CFEA in order to send navigation instructions back to the Rover. In order
to create fully autonomous flight, the UAV must be able to fly in a search pattern and identify
the CFEA upon capturing an image of it. Directions will be sent to the UAV instructing it to fly
in a specified search pattern, and video will be sent back to a ground station to be analyzed in
order to detect and navigate towards the target. Two separate algorithms are required for the
operation of this system, one that uses computer vision to actually locate the target and one
that specifies the flight plan which optimally searches for the target.

5.4.3.1 Detection Algorithm

While flying in a search pattern, the video from the UAV will be constantly analyzed to
determine the existence of the CFEA in the frame. This analysis will be done on the ground
station using the OpenCV library in Python. In designing this system, the team has relied on
footage taken from a drone by last year’s team, and will be capturing additional footage in the
coming months to further refine the system. An example of this kind of image can be seen in
Figure 110.
The images have been collected at various altitudes, from multiple angles, against multiple
different backdrops, and in a variety of weather conditions. They have been manually
annotated with a program, found in Appendix X which allows the user to specify a polygonal
mask by clicking on its vertices. These annotations are then used to create a dataset which can

146
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 109: UAV Data Flow Diagram

be used to determine the most effective transformations which can be applied to an input
image to create a similar output object mask. This is done using the intersection over union
error metric, specified in Equation 32.

|A ∩ I |
E= (32)
|A ∪ I |

E Error
A Set of Pixels in Manually Delineated CFEA
I Set of Pixels in Algorithm Delineated CFEA

This metric awards algorithms which identify most of the target without identifying areas
outside of the target. With this metric, different algorithms and combinations can be directly
compared to one another in an empirical way.
The team is considering several different features in the creation of an accurate target
detection system. One key feature to consider is color. The CFEA is a distinct shade of yellow,
and that shade is different from its surroundings. Because of this, a rough approximation of
the location of the target in a frame can be found by considering pixels whose numeric values
fall within a certain range. However, there is no guarantee that the standard red, green, and
blue (RGB) spectrum is the best color space for this task. Because of this, the team will

147
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 110: A possible target image.

consider alternate spaces as well. For example, the Hue Saturation Value (HSV) space is able to
consistently identify similar colors across a range of different brightness levels. Figure 111
illustrates this difference.

Figure 111: HSV Spectrum.

A yellow tarp, for example, may have a constant hue under widely varying saturations and
values. Focusing analysis on the hue channel can make the system more robust. The team will
consider every reasonable color space implemented in the OpenCV library. Selection will be
limited to the color space that maximizes the intersection over union.
While the color thresholding will be able to give a rough idea of the location of the sample
retrieval area, the statistical nature of the analysis will lead to an object mask that is grainy.
In order to create a more cohesive image to be better analyzed geometrically, morphological
operations are applied to fill in any holes or remove any extraneous pixels. Figure 112 shows an
example of this:

Figure 112: Left: Thresholded image before morphology. Right: Thresholded image after morphology.

148
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 112 was created by applying the dilation, closing, and erosion operations to a color
thresholded image. Each of these operations take the form of a convolution with a set kernel.
These operations can erode false positive pixels and fill in false negative pixels, leading to a
more cohesive image for geometric analysis.
The team will also be analyzing geometric features of the image after color features have
been used to create the object mask. In running tests on color detection software, the team
noticed that a nearby fence, which had a similar color to that of the target, was registering
several false positives for the algorithm. It would detect fence and target and have no way of
differentiating the two. This issue could potentially result in the UAV behaving in unexpected
and unwanted ways while trying to navigate to the target. In order to circumvent this issue,
several geometric features are analyzed. These features include aspect ratio (the width divided
by the height of the bounding rectangle), extent (area divided by bounding rectangle area),
solidity (area divided by float area), compactness (perimeter squared divided by area),
eccentricity (major axis divided by minor axis), and the logarithm of the Hu Moments, a set of
features which are transformation-invariant. A square tarp with a circular hole cut in the
center has a distinct shape, so machine learning techniques like the support-vector machine
can be used to determine the existence of the tarp from its geometric features.
The control flow of the algorithm can be seen in Figure 113.

Figure 113: Target Detection control flow.

Figure 113 shows that several transformations are applied to the input image to create the
output directions and a decision on the existence of the target. This pipeline can then be
integrated with the search algorithm to allow the UAV to reliably locate the CFEA and guide the
rover there.

5.4.3.2 Search Algorithm

In order to determine an optimal flight path for the UAV, a Monte Carlo simulation was
constructed which scatters five targets randomly around a one mile by one mile field. A “drone”
agent is then placed randomly within that field. The agent executes a predefined flight plan

149
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

which operates in fixed 5-foot steps. At each step, the agent checks whether a target is within
its field of view, and if so the simulation ends, returning the number of steps taken to find a
target. Otherwise, the flight path continues until the agent exceeds the bounds of the field. This
process is repeated five thousand times for each possible flight path to generate an accurate
success rate and search time distribution for each flight path.
For the sake of a lower processing time, a few simplifying assumptions were made. Namely,
that the targets and the camera’s field of view (FOV) are circular rather than rectangular
regions. The circular targets’ radius was chosen so as to have an equivalent area to the 10x10
real targets. The camera’s FOV was based on the field of view of the UAV camera selected at
PDR, the Caddx Turbo EOS2. The simulated FOV angle of 120 degrees is approximately the
average of the EOS2’s horizontal and vertical FOV angles, respectively 160 and 90 degrees.
Finally, a target was determined to be “detected” if its angular size within the camera exceeded
5°, which is the approximate lower bound of the target detection pipeline the team
implemented last year.
The team chose three different flight paths as ideal candidates to cover the entire field
quickly and completely. All three paths were tested at a fixed height of 40 feet, which was
experimentally determined to be the greatest height at which targets could be reliably
identified. The first path is a linear sweep of the field, making horizontal passes back and forth
across the field’s length until the entire field has been scanned. The second path is a spiral
proceeding outwards from the center of the field. The final path is a series of “pie slices,”
proceeding from the center of the field to its edge and back. All three approaches are
illustrated in Figure 114.

Figure 114: From the left, graphs of the linear sweep, outward spiral, and pie sweep flight paths.

Each path’s Monte Carlo simulation was repeated twice, once with a purely random
distribution of targets and once with a distribution that forced targets to be at least 1000 feet
apart from each other. The results of these simulations were plotted as histograms, which can
be seen in Figure 115, Figure 116, and Figure 117.
In short, this summary indicates that the Linear Sweep path has a nearly perfect success
rate, while taking between 15,000 and 20,000 steps on average. On the other hand, the Outward
Spiral method only has roughly a 50% success rate, in exchange for an average path length of
7,000 to 8,500 steps. The Pie Sweep method has a fairly high, 90% success rate, but takes even
longer than the Linear Sweep method. Each “step” is 5 feet long, so even the Outward Spiral
method requires approximately 40,000 feet or 8 miles of flight distance to find a target. With

150
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 115: Histograms of Linear Sweep results.

Figure 116: Histograms of Outward Spiral results.

only 15 minutes of flight time, this requires a sustained flight speed of 32 mph or 47 ft/s. While
that may be feasible, it pushes the limits of what the mechanical design is expected to achieve
with only a 50% chance of success.
Because of this, the team has chosen to implement a more informed search protocol, based
on a probability map of the field. This map will identify regions of the field which are likely and
unlikely to contain a target. It will be constructed by hand based on aerial photos of the launch
site, then cross-checked on the day of launch. The UAV, then, will use GPS to traverse to the
nearest likely area, then scan that area with a Linear Sweep flight path. Figure 118 lays out this
traversal algorithm in more detail.

Figure 118: Flowchart of informed search algorithms.

5.4.3.3 Ground Station Relay

The ground station will serve as a command center for both the UAV and the rover,
governing both autonomous and manual operations. The primary hardware will be a
Raspberry Pi 4B.The Pi was chosen for its processing power, along with its greater user control
than microprocessors like the Arduino series and greater hardware compatibility than a PC. It
additionally has a relatively low price point. This Pi will be connected to a monitor and

151
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 117: Histograms of Pie Sweep results.

keyboard to display the status of both vehicles and receive user input. It will additionally be
equipped with two radio transceivers, one for the rover and one for the UAV. Additionally, it
will be equipped with a dedicated receiver for the UAV’s video feed. The rover will be using the
Adafruit RFM9x long-range radio module, so the ground station will use a second RFM9x
module for straightforward compatibility. The RFM9 module is pictured in Figure 129.
As the UAV is using commercial flight controller and radio communication modules, similar
modules have been chosen on the ground station for compatibility. The Team Blacksheep (TBS)
Crossfire Micro TX has been chosen for primary communications with the UAV. It has built-in
telemetry support and is designed for long-range communications. This module will be used
with a TBS Diamond antenna, which is designed for communication with low-flying RC aircraft.
These devices are shown in Figure 119.

Figure 119: From the left, RFM9x ,TBS Crossfire Micro TX, and TBS Diamond antenna.

Additionally, the ground station will be equipped with the TBS Dominator Rx module, using
the included patch antenna. This module is designed for receiving an A/V signal, with the
capability to work on a number of different channels. It is pictured in Figure 120.
The primary purpose of the ground station is autonomous control of both the UAV and the
rover. Both the target detection and search algorithms detailed in Sections 5.3.3.1 and 5.3.3.2
will be running on the ground station’s Raspberry Pi. Control instructions based on those
algorithms will be sent to the UAV and rover, using the Mavlink protocol. This is a standard
drone communication protocol, and it will be adapted for use by the rover as well.
Additionally, if the target detection pipeline executes more slowly than the rate of input from
the UAV camera, additional Raspberry Pi 4Bs will be added to the system to form a computing
cluster which can process input more quickly.
The Adafruit RFM9x module is designed for line-of-sight communication, which cannot be
guaranteed from the fixed position of the ground station. Therefore, this module will use a

152
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 120: TBS Dominator Rx Video Receiver

second TBS Diamond antenna, for improved near-ground communications. Additionally, if

testing indicates this system is inadequate, a way station will be implemented for
communication with the rover, similar to the system being used with the rocket’s telemetry.
The ground station’s LCD monitor will display the video feed from the UAV, along with
telemetry information from both vehicles. By default, both UAV and rover will behave entirely
autonomously, but the ground station will have the ability to switch either vehicle over to
manual control. Manual control of the UAV will be accomplished at the ground station via an
independent FrSky Taranis X9D Plus 2.4 GHz radio transmitter, pictured in Figure 121. An
operator will be able to control the UAV with this transmitter while watching the ground
station’s incoming video feed.

Figure 121: FrSky Taranis X9D Plus Radio Transmitter

The rover’s manual control will be accomplished via a game controller interfaced to a simple
arduino uno circuit with an RFM95W transceiver matching the one on the rover. When manual
control of the rover is required, the ground station will cease sending commands, allowing a
team of operators to walk out to the rover’s location and complete the sample retrieval process
using the Bluetooth controller. A simple schematic of the manual controller is shown in figure
122.

153
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 122: Manual Controller Schematic

5.5 Rover

The rover is a critical part of the payload mission, and is intended to drive the sample
retrieval system to the recovery area in order to retrieve a 10 milliliter sample of lunar ice. This
year, the team embraced the challenge of designing the rover to autonomously process
location data recovered from a UAV in order to navigate to the sample site, similar to how real
extraterrestrial payloads must process data from various sources like satellites. The rover is
comprised of various subsystems required to provide the mechanical functionality to traverse
the launch field, recover the sample, and all necessary electronics for controlling these
processes and autonomously responding to data from the UAV or a manual operator.

5.5.1 Mechanical Design

The rover is designed to be strong and lightweight to meet the requirements of the lunar
sample recovery mission, which is why the team has chosen the eccentric crank rover as the
final mechanical design. No major changes were made to the eccentricity of its motion since
PDR. The current overall mechanical design for the rover can be found in Figure 123.

154
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 123: Mechanical Design of the Rover in Translation Configurations

The largest envelope that the rover creates is 6.25 x 10.53 x 3.74 in. An important note to make
about the eccentric crank rover is that its envelope is not constant due to its eccentricity. Special
care therefore needs to be taken to ensure that the rover can fit securely into the launch vehicle
in all of its configurations. During flight the rover will be in configuration C. This position is
characterized by the rover body being at its lowest position. This configuration was chosen to
best secure the rover with the retention system under the rover.
The design for the main body of the rover consists of a flat section and an angled section at
each end. The flat portion in the middle of the body contains the two motors that will be used
to drive the rover, along with the electronics that will be used to control it. The motors that have
been chosen for the rover are two DC spur gear motors. Table 57 shows important parameters
for the selected motors.

Table 57: 98 rpm Econ Gear Motor Parameters

Parameter Value
Voltage Range 6-18 V
No Load Speed 98 rpm
No Load Current 0.1 A
Stall Current 3.8 A
Stall Torque 524.32 oz.-in.

A DC motor was chosen because of its high startup torque, and relative cheapness. A spur
gear motor was chosen, because of the need to have a motor speed of around 60 rpms for the
crank wheels. This is a much lower operational speed than a conventional DC motor. This
rotational speed was determined based on traveling a max distance of 2,500 ft, within the hour

155
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

of allocated time for the sample retrieval. It was determined that having an integrated spur
gearing system would be cheaper and lighter than designing an entirely new one. For a DC
motor, the torque speed is linear, and it is therefore relatively simple to calculate the operating
torque. The method used to calculate the operating torque is seen in Equation 33.

ω
Tm = T s (1 − ) (33)
ωf

Where T s is the stall torque, ω f is the no load speed, and ω is the desired operating speed
of 60 rpms. From this equation it was determined that each DC motor will have an operating
torque of 207 oz-in. For a small and light rover this is more than enough power to drive through
the toughest of environmental conditions. These motors are relatively light, and therefore it is
acceptable to use an overly powerful motor for the system. In order to hold the motor in place
on the rover body, a 25 mm bore clamp will be used. This component was chosen because of
its relatively low profile, and easy assembly and disassembly of the rover body. Only one 6-32
screw needs to be tightened to secure the motor, making it a very easy component to handle.
To transmit torque from the motor to crank wheel, the hub of the crank wheel will be pressure
fit onto the motor shaft. A 4-40 set screw will also be tightened onto the motor shaft to further
increase the allowable torque. The team was originally planning on solely using a set screw, but
found that due to its small size, it did not have enough holding power. Figure 124 shows how
the motor will interface with the crank wheel.

Figure 124: Diagram for how the DC motors will interface with the crank wheel. This system will utilize
a pressure fit and set screws to ensure torque transmission.

The body and the two links of the rover will be made out of 3D printed ASA plastic. The
team can rapidly prototype the rover body and links with available 3D printers, which is greatly
beneficial in the testing process. The team has had prior success utilizing 3D printers in payload
design, and is therefore confident in the success of this design criteria. Extensive FEA analysis
has also been performed to ensure a safe and successful launch and landing. The body and
links have treads designed into the bottom to maximize traction of the system. The terrain the
rover will have to traverse to the lunar ice collection site will be muddy, so a treaded system will
greatly improve the rover’s ability to navigate the terrain.
The crank wheel design is considerably the most complex aspect of the mechanical design
of the rover, due to the rigorous environmental conditions that the component will undergo.

156
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

The crank wheel will consist of a 6061-aluminum hub fitted with two aluminum shafts. This
assembly will be press fit into an HDPE outer wheel, which will also have splines machined into
the hub and outer wheel to allow greater transmission of torque. Figure 125 shows an exploded
view of the wheel assembly.

Figure 125: Exploded view of the passive wheel assembly of the motor. Note the splines on the hub and
the wheel cover used to secure the assembly together.

As seen from Figure 125 the axles are attached to the hub with a bolt and washer assembly.
This was chosen over a more permanent connection for ease of maintenance on the system. It
was necessary to make the hub and axles of the crank wheel out of aluminum due to the large
accelerations seen from the system during main deployment. Any plastic deformation of the
axle during the flight would result in a critical mission failure. The crank wheel will also serve
as the attachment point for the payload retention system. Any failure in this system would
result in a serious safety hazard to the launch vehicle and others. The higher Young’s Modulus
and yield strength of aluminum when compared to plastics will greatly mitigate the likelihood
of this occurring. 6061 aluminum is also considerably lighter than other materials of similar
strengths, such as stainless steel. The outer wheel was chosen to be HDPE largely because the
entire wheel assembly could not be made out of aluminum due to weight requirements. HDPE
was chosen over 3D printed PLA due to its higher ductility. HDPE will be able to have some
plastic deformation, and still be a functional system. To secure the crank wheels to the rest of
the rover body, two different methods are being utilized. One is to machine a shoulder onto the
crank wheel axle, and the other is placing shaft collars on the axles. Both of these methods fully
limit axle motion on its axis.
Due to the rigorous environmental conditions the rover experiences during flight, finite
element analysis was performed on many of the components. The Fusion 360 simulation
environment was used to perform all analyses. The worst environmental conditions the rover
will experience during flight is during main parachute deployment, where the launch vehicle
experiences upwards of 37 g’s of acceleration. One of the most critical components of the rover
is the crank wheel, and for the FEA it was assumed that each crank wheel experiences an equal
portion of the acceleration shock load. The hubs outer faces were assumed to be fixed, and this
was the only grounded constraint of the analysis. This is a conservative approach, as in reality
the outer wheel cover will absorb some stresses, and the hub is not entirely fixed. Two point
masses were created to represent the main rover body and link that interact with the crank

157
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

wheel. This acceleration was performed for the X, Y, and Z axes individually to ensure that the
crank wheel can handle main deployment in all configurations. The results of the FEA can be
found in Figure 127.

Figure 126: FEA of Crank

The highest stress that the crank wheel experienced in this analysis was 14,307 psi. For 6061
aluminum with a yield strength of 35,000 psi, this results in a safety factor of 2.44. The
maximum deflection of the axles was found to be 0.007 inches, which is negligible. Additional
FEA simulations were conducted on the links and body of the Rover. The results of the body
FEA can be seen in Figure 93 in Section 5.3.1. A 37 g acceleration was used to generate the
force experienced by the link and came from the battery located in the slot. Figure 127 shows
the results of the FEA.

Figure 127: FEA of the Rover Body and Link.

The highest stress experienced in this analysis was 697.2 psi, which results in a safety factor
of 7.17 for ASA with a yield strength of 5,000 psi. This safety factor is very conservative. The
maximum deflection was found to be 0.003 inches, which is negligible. Beyond FEA, extensive
testing will be performed on the rover to ensure it can effectively navigate all the way to the
sample sites.

158
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

5.5.2 Electrical Design

The rover payload electronics will integrate the system inputs and outputs for control of the
payload. The major components consist of: an MCU, an RF transceiver, a GPS module, an IMU,
a motor controller and two drive motors, and two sample retrieval servo motors.

5.5.2.1 Microcontroller

The Microchip PIC32MX795F512H was selected as the MCU that will control the rover
system. The PIC32 provides 6 UART modules, 4 SPI modules, 5 I2C modules, 5 pulse width
modulation (PWM) pins, and a maximum of 53 GPIO pins. This provides ample pins for the
rover system, which will utilize one I2C module, two UART modules, one SPI module, and four
PWM signals. The PIC32MX will be configured using PICKIT3 programming modules available
to the team through the Notre Dame Electrical Engineering design labs and programmed
using Microchip’s MPLAB X software. A block diagram of the interface protocols used with the
PIC32 are shown in figure 128.

Figure 128: Component Communication

5.5.2.2 RF Transceiver

The rover will receive commands through a Hope RF RFM95W radio module, shown below
in figure 129. This module was chosen based on its long range (LoRa) module with a range of
1.25 miles, license-free ISM 915 MHz band operation, 100mW power rating in order to fulfill
requirement 2.22.9, and SPI interfacing to the MCU. One module will be integrated into the
design of the rover electronics board, and another transmitting module will be used to send
signals from the ground station for manual control and delivering the GPS coordinates of the
UAV to the Rover.

5.5.2.3 Rover GPS

The MTK3339 GPS module from GlobalTop Technology was selected to provide location
information for the rover. This module provides a built in ceramic antenna for tracking from
GPS satellites with automatic switching capability and a -165 dBm sensitivity to maintain
connection. The 10 Hz refresh rate will be sufficient for the speed of the rover and the 70 mW
power rating will allow for longer operation. The GPS module is shown below in figure 129.

159
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

5.5.2.4 Rover IMU

The Bosch BNO055 inertial measurement unit (IMU) was selected to collect acceleration
and magnetometer measurements. This package allows for multiple sensor measurements to
be collected into a single component package over a single I2C interface to the PIC32. The
acceleration data will be used to measure if the rover is moving as well as detect orientation
prior to deployment. The magnetometer data will be used to determine the compass
orientation of the rover in order to correct the orientation and head in the direction of the UAV
transmitted GPS coordinate. A strong benefit of this package is that it is designed to perform
data fusion of the acceleration and magnetometer data, allowing it to provide
tilt-compensated compass data. An external 32kHz oscillator will be used to provide more
accurate performance from the BNO055. The BNO055 integrated circuit packaging is shown
below in figure 129.

Figure 129: From the left, RFM95W Radio Module, MTK3339 GPS Module, BNO055 IMU

5.5.2.5 Rover Drive Motors and Motor Controller

The Actobotics 98RPM Econ Gear Motor from Servo City was selected to provide actuation
for the drivetrain of the rover. These motors were selected due to their small size and high
torque of 524 oz-in at stall. The motor draws a mere 0.10 A at no load and 3.8 A at stall, which is
lower than many competing options and provides flexibility in choosing from numerous
available motor controllers meeting these specifications. Two motors will be used in total, one
on each side, and each motor weighs 0.20 pounds. The Econ Gear Motor is shown below in
figure 130.
The Sabertooth 2x5 Motor Controller was selected to control the Econ Gear Motors. The
Sabertooth 2x5 motor controller was selected to control the drive motors for the rover. This
controller can provide 5 amps of continuous current and 10 amps of peak current to two motor
channels, which is enough to safely supply up to the 3.8A stall current of the drive motors
without burning out the motor controller. The motor controller has a voltage rating of 6-18V,
which exactly matches the accepted input range for the selected motor. This motor controller
also provides flexibility in control methods, as the board can receive commands via either
pulse width modulation (PWM) signals or a serial interface sending a set of bits identifying the
speed at which to run each motor. The Sabertooth also incorporates circuit protections to
avoid operation while overheating or drawing too much current. The Sabertooth can be seen
below in figure 130.
Because the Sabertooth operates at 5V and the PIC32 operates at 3.3V logic, a logic shifter is
being used to ensure compatibility between the two devices. The Texas Instruments

160
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 130: From the left, Econ Gear Motor and Sabertooth 2x5 Motor Controller

SN74LVC8T245 8-Bit dual-supply bus transceiver with configurable voltage-level shifting has
been selected to provide this logic shift. This will safely allow serial communication between
3.3V and 5V devices. This chip provides 8 channels, of which 6 will be used. Two channels will
be used for the serial communication with the Sabertooth, two channels will be configured to
PWM pins for the Sabertooth as an alternative control option, and two channels will be used to
send PWM signals to the servo motors used for the sample retrieval, which rely on 5 V signals.

5.5.2.6 Rover Power System

The nominal operating voltage of the selected motors is 12V, with an input range of 6-18V.
Hence an 11.1V battery was selected for the Rover. The Rover will be powered by two 11.1V
batteries, with one battery mounting on each side rail to distribute weight as described in the
mechanical design. Tenergy 11.1V Li-Ion batteries with a 2600 mAh and 5A continuous current
rating were selected. This decision was based on the nominal voltage of the motor, the 5A
current rating which matches the Sabertooth rating and is over the 3.8A stall current of the
motors, providing safety against over-current draw damaging the batteries and causing a
safety hazard.
The PIC32 and connected components run at 3.3V logic while the sample retrieval servo
motors run at 5V. Thus, voltage regulation is required to power the circuit components off of
the 11.1V of the batteries. Due to the large difference in voltage, between 11.1V and 3.3V or 5V,
a linear voltage regulator would provide inefficient and reduce the run time of the system. A
DC-DC buck converter provides voltage regulation with a much higher efficiency, with the
drawback of additional components required to filter noise produced by the switching
frequency of the converter. The LM2596 has been selected to provide the voltage conversion
and regulation for 3.3 and 5V. The LM2596 operates at a 150kHz switching frequency and can
convert voltages from a range up to 40V and supply up to 3A which is sufficient for the battery
and circuit components.
A table of the major operating currents of the rover are found in table 58. The average
current draw of the rover while driving is 4184.4 mA. Given the 5200 mAh total capacity of the
two batteries, this gives the system an approximate run-time of 75 minutes while driving at a
half-stall load on the motors. When idle, the motors draw only 10mA, resulting in a total
current draw of 194.4 mA and an idle run-time of 26 hours which is more than sufficient for

161
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

remaining idle on the launch pad prior to launch.

Table 58: Rover: Estimated Power Budget

Device/State Current Draw (mA)

PIC32MX 120
LM2596-3V 10
LM2596-5V 10
BNO055 12.3
MTK3339 20
RFM95W 12.1
2x Motors: half-stall 4000
Total Current: 4184.4

5.5.2.7 Circuit Integration

To integrate the various components of the rover electronics, a custom PCB has been
designed. The design schematics can be seen below in figures 131, 132, and 133.

Figure 131: PIC32 Primary Connections Schematic

162
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 132: Rover PCB Power Subsystem

Figure 133: Rover PCB Sensors and Radio Subsystems

5.5.3 Sample Retrieval System

The Sample Retrieval subsystem will be comprised of an Archimedes screw, shown in Figure
134, integrated into the front end of the Rover to gather the lunar ice sample. The screw will be

163
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

deployed out of its case using a rack and pinion system into the sample site. It will then rotate
based on a PWM signal from the rover processor. The sample will proceed up the screw as it
rotates, to be deposited in an enclosed collection bin underneath it.

Figure 134: CAD of Sample Retrieval Subsystem

Archimedes screws are historically used with transporting fluids. For this project, the lunar
sample is assumed to act fluid-like as it moves across the Archimedes screw. This assumption is
grounded upon the fact that the lunar sample is taken to be small, lightweight, with a smooth,
low friction surface. These ‘grains’ of the sample will then be fluid-like. The aforementioned
assumption regarding the nature of the lunar sample will be tested to ensure the screw’s ability
to collect and transport a sample.

5.5.3.1 Archimedes Screw

Figure 135: CAD of Archimedes Screw

An Archimedes screw is a helical screw inside a hollow casing (like a tube). These screws have
several buckets, bounded pockets of volume along the blade and the tube, that can hold and

164
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

translate fluid. One turn of the shaft connected to the screw collects water in the first bucket. As
the screw is rotating, the water will travel up to the following buckets (away from the tip of the
screw) and more water will be collected in the first bucket. The water will move up the buckets
until it exits from the top of the screw. For this subsystem, the sample will be deposited in a
hollow box once it reaches the top.
The volume calculation of this hollow box was conducted through a SolidWorks internal
region analysis. The volume of the hollow box is 10.26 cubic centimeters. A cubic centimeter is
directly identical in volume to a milliliter. Therefore, the (hollow) box volume of 10.26 cubic
centimeters is sufficient to store the 10 mL of sample required per NASA Requirement 4.3.3.

5.5.3.2 Rover Integration and Operation

Figure 136: CAD of Archimedes Screw Views

Figure 137: CAD of Archimedes Screw Vehicles Integration

The Archimedes screw will be deployed using a rack and pinion system. A rack and pinion
system turns the rotational motion of the pinion into translational motion for the rack. The
pinion gear is attached to a high torque motor that is embedded in the front side of the rover
base plate. The rack is attached underneath the hollow box of the screw. As the pinion turns,
the screw moves down towards the sample. The screw system is supported on the right by a peg

165
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

attached to the rover base. Once in contact with the sample, the Adafruit continuous motor will
rotate the screw picking up the sample and forcing it to travel up the blade and the case. Then,
the sample will fall into the hollow box underneath the tube through a hole situated at the top.
This storage method will make the sample easy to contain and transport. Once the screw has
collected the 10 milliliters, the pinion will rotate the opposite direction to retract the screw back
into the rover.

5.5.4 Rover Software

Software for the rover will be hosted on the PIC32 processor controlling the rover. The
software shall be written and compiled in the C language using Microchip’s MPLABX program
designed to interface with PIC processors. A PICkit3 in-circuit debugger will be used to
program the PIC32 and debug the software during testing.

5.5.4.1 Control Flowchart

The rover will go through a few different stages during the mission. Initially, the rover will
be in an idle state, secured in the launch vehicle. The rover will use the on-board
accelerometer to determine that the launch vehicle has landed, enabling the receiving of a
deployment signal with a specific code over radio. This will result in a signal from the rover’s
PIC32 to the retention electronic system’s Itsy Bitsy processor initiating deployment by
retracting the retention solenoids and allowing the rover and UAV to drive out of the launch
vehicle. As the vehicle departs the launch vehicle, quick disconnect wire connectors that
attach the rover to the retention electronics will be pulled apart by the rover departing the
launch vehicle, allowing it to leave unobstructed.
After departing the launch vehicle, the UAV will begin its mission sequence. During that
time, the Rover will initiate and confirm sensor readings function nominally. If sensors fail,
red LEDs on the rover will indicate the need to enter manual control mode which will be done
using a manual controller. If sensors are nominal, the rover awaits a confirmation signal from
the ground station with GPS coordinates of the UAV at the sample area.
Once the GPS coordinates are retrieved, the rover software will calculate the necessary
heading needed for the rover to reach the target area. A simple proportional-integral controller
will be used to respond to the error between the current heading measured by the BNO055 and
the needed heading. The rover will begin traveling toward the sample area until GPS indicates
the rover has reached the sample area where it will initiate the sample retrieval process. Once
complete, the rover will drive until GPS indicates the rover has traveled outside the area. A
flowchart for the control system can be seen below in figure 138.

5.5.4.2 Rover Compass Heading Calculation

Using the GPS coordinates provided by the UAV and the ones recorded by the GPS module
on board the rover, the rover software will calculate the necessary bearing using the formula in
equation 34.

166
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 138: Rover Software Control Flowchart

θ = atan2(sin(∆λ) ∗ cos(φ2 ), cos(φ1 ) ∗ sin(φ2 ) − sin(φ1 ) ∗ cos(φ2 ) ∗ cos(∆λ)) (34)

Where φ1 ,λ1 is the start point, φ2 ,λ2 the end point, and ∆λ is the difference in longitude.
The on board BNO055 inertial measurement unit will be used to calculate the current heading
of the rover. The BNO055 shall be configured and calibrated in the COMPASS mode as outlined
in section 3.3 of its datasheet. This will allow the BNO055 to fuse data from the magnetometer
and accelerometer to provide tilt compensated compass data for calculating heading by taking
the inverse tangent of the X and Y components of the magnetometer data.
Once the BNO055 has calculated the rover heading, a simple proportional-integral
controller will be used to determine the appropriate response of the rover motors to the error
of the current heading and the desired heading for the sample retrieval site.

167
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6 Project Plan

6.1 Testing

The testing plans and progress for each subsection are summarized in Table 59. Testing
manuals for each test are included in Sections 6.1.1-6.1.6
Table 59: Testing Plan
System Test Test ID Requirements Verified Status
Subscale Wind Tunnel Testing LVT1 2.17.1 Pass
Subscale Launches LVT2 2.17.1 Pass
Launch Vehicle Bulkhead Solids Testing LVT3 2.4 Incomplete
Full Scale Vehicle Test Flight LVT4 2.18 Incomplete
Shake Test LVT5 2.4 Incomplete
Center of Gravity Test LVT6 2.18 Incomplete
Black Powder Testing RT1 3.2 Incomplete
Altimeter Testing RT2 3.4 Incomplete
Recovery Telemetry Range and Antenna Test RT3 2.18.2 Incomplete

Free Rotation of Platform PDT1 P.21 Incomplete

Payload: Solenoid Actuation PDT2 P.22 Incomplete
Deployment
Vibration & Motion Restriction of Rover
PDT3 P.22 Incomplete
and UAV
Deployment of Rover and UAV PDT4 P.22 Incomplete

Manual Flight PUT1 P.14 Incomplete

Autonomous Flight PUT2 P.13 Incomplete
Payload: UAV Trnsmit Video to G.S. PUT3 P.23 Incomplete
Detection of Simulated CFEA PUT4 P.23 Incomplete
Landing Location Identification PUT5 P.24 Incomplete
Detection of CFEA with UAV PUT6 P.23 Incomplete
Payload: Rover Electrical Connections PRT1 P.4 Incomplete
Subscale Launch ABT1 V.4 Pass
Mechanism and Motor Ground Testing ABT2 V.4 Incomplete
ABS Control Structure Ground Testing ABT3 V.4 Incomplete

6.1.1 Launch Vehicle Testing

LVT1: Subscale Wind Tunnel Testing

Objective:
To obtain an experimental drag coefficient for the launch vehicle with air braking tabs at (1)
no extension, (2) half-extension, and (3) full-extension. Drag may be scaled to model full-scale
vehicle flights.
Tested Items:

168
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Sub-scale vehicle with no tab extension (no actuation)

• Sub-scale vehicle with half tab extension (half-actuation)
• Sub-scale vehicle with full tab extension (full-actuation)
Motivation:
• To ensure that the subscale launch vehicle can withstand the wind conditions it may face
during testing
• To calculate the airspeed around the rocket, the induced drag, the drag coefficient, and
Reynold’s number.
Success Criteria:

Table 60: Test ID Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - Dimensionless parameters, such as
The subscale model
coefficient of drag, are consistent between wind tunnel
should resemble
and simulated data.
2.17.1. and perform very Pass
similarly to the
Fail - Wind tunnel data is inconsistent with theoretical
full-scale model.
and subscale data.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• 2 ft x 2 ft x 6 ft subsonic tunnel in Hessert Laboratory with test article mount (see
schematic in Figure 26)
• Aerodynamics Lab DAQ Utility
• Sub-scale vehicle
• 3D printed ring simulating unactuated air braking tabs
• 3D printed tabs simulating air braking tab half-actuation
• 3D printed tabs simulating air braking tab full-actuation
• 3D printed bracket
Setup:
1. Create CAD model of bracket to mate with the test article mount inside the wind tunnel
(used to suspend the launch vehicle in the subsonic wind tunnel)
2. 3D print bracket
3. Epoxy bracket inside the body tube of the launch vehicle
4. Perform nine 10-second tests per level of actuation (no tabs, half tabs, and full tabs)
Safety Notes:
• Ensured subscale test article was completely intact via visual and shake tests for damage
• Ensured test section was clear
• Ensured wind tunnel door was sealed shut prior to running tests
• Team members stood at a safe distance from the wind tunnel when testing was underway
Procedure:

169
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

1. Attach 3D printed ring simulating unactuated air braking tabs to the subscale vehicle
2. Insert vehicle into wind tunnel, parallel to the flow
3. Connect the epoxied bracket on the launch vehicle to the test article mount inside the
wind tunnel
4. Close the wind tunnel door, ensuring its seal
5. Team members step away from door
6. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼1.3 m/s under the supervision of NDRT graduate
advisor, Emma Farnan
7. Record data at given speed for 10 s
8. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼3.6 m/s under the supervision of NDRT graduate
advisor, Emma Farnan
9. Record data at given speed for 10 s
10. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼7.5 m/s under the supervision of NDRT graduate
advisor, Emma Farnan
11. Record data at given speed for 10 s
12. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼11.6 m/s under the supervision of NDRT
graduate advisor, Emma Farnan
13. Record data at given speed for 10 s
14. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼15.7 m/s under the supervision of NDRT
graduate advisor, Emma Farnan
15. Record data at given speed for 10 s
16. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼20.0 m/s under the supervision of NDRT
graduate advisor, Emma Farnan
17. Record data at given speed for 10 s
18. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼24.2 m/s under the supervision of NDRT
graduate advisor, Emma Farnan
19. Record data at given speed for 10 s
20. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼28.6 m/s under the supervision of NDRT
graduate advisor, Emma Farnan
21. Record data at given speed for 10 s
22. Increase wind tunnel airspeed speed to ∼32.9 m/s under the supervision of NDRT
graduate advisor, Emma Farnan
23. Record data at given speed for 10 s
24. Decrease wind tunnel airspeed to 0 m/s under supervision of NDRT graduate advisor,
Emma Farnan
25. Disconnect launch vehicle from test article mount
26. Remove launch vehicle from wind tunnel
27. Attach 3D printed tabs simulating air braking tab half-actuation to subscale vehicle
28. Repeat steps 2-26
29. Attach 3D printed tabs simulating air braking tab full-actuation to subscale vehicle
30. Repeat steps 2-26
31. Shut down wind tunnel under supervision of NDRT graduate advisor, Emma Farnan
Results: The tests involving tab extensions yield meaningful data. The data collected showed
that the tabs had a negligible effect on drag. In some cases, the tabs reduced drag. Reasons for

170
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

the discrepancy include noise and a thick boundary layer due to low speed winds (testing had
a maximum airspeed of 32.9 m/s while subscale simulations had a maximum airspeed of 89.9
m/s). Data collected for the drag coefficient of the launch vehicle itself is useful because the
thick boundary layer launch vehicle does not affect the rocket in its entirety.
LVT2: Subscale Launches
Objective:
Verify the stability and geometry of the launch vehicle.
Tested Items:
• Sub-scale launch with no tab extension
• Sub-scale launch with half tab extension
• Sub-scale launch with full tab extension
Motivation:
• To verify the flight characteristics of the proposed launch vehicle
• To verify the effectiveness of the ABS drag tabs
Success Criteria:

Table 61: LVT2 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The subscale vehicle is launched and
The subscale model recovered AND is undamaged and relaunchable.
should resemble
2.17.1. and perform very Fail - Launch vehicle becomes damaged due to launch Pass
similarly to the or recovery such that it cannot be launched again in
full-scale model. the same day OR launch vehicle deviates significantly
from expected launch profile.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Subscale vehicle
• Launch rail
• Subscale Motor
Setup:
1. Attach recovery shock cord to fin can and bottom of recovery tube
2. Insert fire retardant, biodegradable insulation into top of fin can
3. Fold parachute and insert into top of fin can
4. Join fin can and recovery tube via coupler for a friction fit
5. Insert motor into motor mount and secure with motor retainer
6. Activate sensors and insert into top of recovery tube
7. Join payload tube and recovery tube via coupler and secure with set screw
Safety Notes:

171
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Only launch manager can handle motor

• Listen to RSO instructions at all times
Procedure:
• Slide rail buttons onto launch rail, and set launch rail pitch
• Secure ignition wiring onto motor
• Launch vehicle
• Recover landed vehicle and retrieve flight data from sensors
Results: The subscale launch vehicle successfully launched and landed for three separate
flights on December 7, 2019. Altimeter data for each sensor was collected and the vehicle
followed the expected flight path. Full subscale results can be seen in Section 3.6.3.
LVT3: Bulkhead Solids Testing
Objective:
To verify bulkhead material selection for strengh to withstand respective forces.
Tested Items:
• 0.25 in. plywood bulkhead
• 0.125 in. G10 fiberglass bulkhead
Motivation:
• To guide decision on bulkhead material selection
• To ensure that bulkheads can sustain their intended loads without damage
Success Criteria:

Table 62: LVT3 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - Strength properties of various bulkhead
Vehicle must be able materials are verified AND suitable material choices
to be recovered are confirmed.
2.4 without damage Incomplete
and relaunched in Fail - Strength properties of various bulkhead materials
the same day. are not verified OR improper material choice was
made based on load results.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Carbon fiber couplers with bulkheads to be tested epoxied inside
• Load frame
Setup:
• Mix epoxy and spread out in a ring in the coupler
• Slide bulkhead over ring
• Fillet each side of the seam with epoxy
• Leave to dry for 24 hours

172
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Safety Notes:
• It is unsafe to handle epoxy without gloves
• Stand a safe distance away from the force frame while testing is underway, as coupler and
bulkhead have potential to break
Procedure:
• Load coupler and bulkhead onto force frame
• Gradually increase force upon bulkhead until signs of structural failure show, such as
cracked bulkhead or separation at the epoxy seam
• Record force at failure
• Repeat for each bulkhead
Results: Results to be collected 01/15/2020 - 01/24/2020.
LVT4: Full Scale Test Flight
Objective:
To validate the launch vehicle’s stability, structural integrity, recovery systems, payload systems,
and the team’s ability to prepare the launch vehicle for flight.
Tested Items:

• Vehicle airframe performance • Telemetry module performance

• ABS performance • Recovery system performance
• LSRS performance • Launch procedure streamline

Motivation:
• To ensure a successful mission with all requirements met and all subsystem designs
validated
Success Criteria:

Table 63: Test ID Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - Launch confirms that hardware is
functioning properly AND flight is stable AND no
All teams will damage is sustained AND payload system
complete accomplishes simulated mission.
2.18 demonstration Incomplete
flights as outlined in Fail - Hardware does not function properly OR flight is
Req. 2.18.1-2.18.2.4 unstable OR damage is sustained OR payload is not
flown OR payload does not accomplish mission
successfully

Test Procedure:
Equipment:

173
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Nose cone • Motor Casing

• Payload bay • Motor Retainer
• Transition Section • Eyebolts
• Recovery Tube • Camera
• Fin can • Washers
• Shear pins • Nuts
• Locking screws • Screws
• Motor (2) • Motor retainer

Setup:
• Inspect each body tube for deformations or cracks to ensure there is no damage
• Check adhesives and connectors at each connection to make sure they are strong
• Inspect fins for any cracks or deformations
• Recovery Integration (See Recovery Checklist)
• Insert ABS into fincan by matching the notches to the internal dowel rod in the body tube
• The removable bulkhead at the top of the system is then secured using four button head
screws.
• Inspect the drag tab cutouts in the fin can to ensure that the tabs are visible and have
clearance to extend
• Place one 10 washer and lock nut on each of the threaded rods at the top of the forward
ABS bulkhead to secure them to the fin can
• Inspect through the barometric vent holes to ensure that the LEDs are still lit and indicate
the system is not prematurely in the launched state
• If the LEDs indicate a premature launched state, the system must be removed and reset.
• Make a final inspection of the system’s installation for any obvious defects or
abnormalities
• Attach loose end of drogue shock cord to the ABS top bulkhead eyebolt
• Secure fin can to recovery tube using shear pins
• Use twist to lock mechanism to screw telemetry system into nose cone
• Secure the lock by aligning the two eye bolts and tying them with Kevlar cord
• Slide sliding payload platform into slots on stationary platform
• Thread nuts and bolts through holes on platform
The next steps should ONLY be performed by the Launch Manager Dave Brunsting.
Gloves and safety glasses should be worn.
• Create one ejection charge using an e-match and black powder. Ensure that the e-match
loose wires are shunted together to prevent accidental ignition of the black powder
• Re-check to ensure that the battery box switch is in the “off” position
• Connect the loose ejection charge wire to its corresponding lever wire
• Place the ejection charge in its corresponding PVC charge well
• Cover each charge well with painters tape to keep the charge in place
• Ensure all wire holes are plugged with sealing clay
This concludes the steps that must be performed by the Launch Manager
• Press fit nose cone between the sliding bulkhead and the inner diameter of the payload
bay body tube. Be careful to align the shear pin holes.

174
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Place shear pins in holes

• Insert the MicroSD card into the back of the camera
• Press power button
• Wait for steady yellow light from camera
• Press the recording button (button with the camera symbol).
• If camera is flashing yellow, then the camera is recording
• Insert the camera into the transition section slot so that the lens is facing downward
• On the edge closest to the lens, place three small washers and loosely fit a lock nut onto
the tie rod
• On the edge further from the lens, place the medium washer and then two small washers
and loosely fit the lock nut on the tie rod
• If the camera does not fit, or has too much space to move, repeat previous four steps
• If a proper fit is achieved, tighten the lock nuts with crescent wrench
• Perform shake test of assembly to ensure secure connection
The next steps should ONLY be performed by the Launch Manager Dave Brunsting.
Gloves and safety glasses should be worn.
• Remove the motor from its packaging
• Check that the motor is properly assembled according to manufacturer’s instructions and
inspect the motor for defects
• Insert the propellant into the casing, ensuring that the two spacers precede the propellant
• Screw on the rear closure
• Insert the motor into the rocket, ensuring proper motor direction
• Attach the motor retainer
• Check for a secure fit
This concludes the steps that must be performed by the Launch Manager
• The Cg and stability check should be performed by the Vehicles lead
• Perform center of gravity (Cg) test to ensure the center of gravity matches the simulated
Cg by placing the fully assembled vehicle on a thin wooden stand so that it is cantilevered
on both sides. Move the vehicle until it perfectly balances.
• Mark the measured Cg and simulated Cg on the vehicle
• Mark the simulated center of pressure (Cp) on the vehicle
• Ensure calculated stability corresponds to predicted value
• Ballast as necessary to maintain a stability margin of >2 calipers or within 10% of
predicted margin (whichever is greater)
• Register with LCO and RSO at the launch site
• Lower the launch rail such that it is parallel to the ground
• Align the rail buttons with the rail and slide the vehicle onto the rail with the fin can
towards the ground
• Set rail angle to be perpendicular to the ground with an added maximum 7 degrees into
the wind
• Allow payload and subsystem teams to activate systems
The next steps should ONLY be performed by the Launch Manager Dave Brunsting. Heat
resistant gloves and safety glasses should be worn.
• Clear all personnel except for the Launch Manager
• Check that the ignition wires, connected to the launch control system, do not have a live

175
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

voltage across them. This can be done by lightly touching the clips to each other while
away from the vehicle, watching for sparks. If no sparks are thrown it is safe to proceed.
• Remove the igniter clips from the igniter
• Ensure that the igniter has properly exposed ends which are split apart
• Insert the igniter into the motor
• Attach the clips to the igniter, ensuring good contact
• Clear the launch are of all personnel and maintain the distance as designated by the RSO
in accordance with NAR/TRA regulations
• If motor does not ignite when planned, wait for RSO instruction to approach
Safety Notes:
• Only launch manager can handle motor
• Only launch manager can handle black powder
• When launch manager is handling motor or black powder, all others are to stand a safe
distance away
• Everyone must listen to range officer at all times
Procedure:
Results: Results to be collected on 02/08/2020, 02/15/2020, and/or 02/29/2020.
LVT5: Shake Test
Objective:
To verify that all vehicle components are secured to the airframe properly
Tested Items:
• No vehicle components within the airframe rattle around when the launch vehicle is
shaken
Motivation:
• To prevent any launch vehicle components from becoming damaged in flight
Success Criteria:

Table 64: LVT5 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Launch vehicle is Success - Launch vehicle is fully assembled and no
not damaged in components rattle around.
2.4 Incomplete
flight and can be
relaunched. Fail - One or more components are rattling around.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• NDRT Launch Vehicle
Setup:
• Assemble vehicle following the procedure described in LVT4

176
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Safety Notes:
• Shaking launch vehicle is prone to dropping and therefore can potentially become
damaged
• anyone in general vicinity of launch vehicle can be hit by shaking vehicle
Procedure:
• Shake launch vehicle
• Listen for any rattling parts
Results: Results to be collected prior to launch.
LVT6: Center of Gravity Test
Objective:
To verify that actual vehicle stability aligns with simulated vehicle stability.
Tested Items:
• Center of gravity
Motivation:
• To prevent launch vehicle from being over or under stable during flight
Success Criteria:

Table 65: LVT6 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - Launch vehicle center of gravity places the
stability margin between 2.45 and 2.75.
Vehicle must have
2.18 Incomplete
stable flight Fail - Launch vehicle center of gravity places the
stability margin outside of the acceptable range of
2.45-2.75.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• NDRT Launch Vehicle
• Laser cut vehicle stand
Setup:
• Assemble vehicle following the procedure described in LVT4
Safety Notes:
• N/A
Procedure:
• Place launch vehicle on stand and find the spot where the vehicle balances on the stand
• measure distance to tip of nosecone from that location
• calculate actual stability margin

177
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Results: Results to be collected prior to launch.

6.1.2 Recovery Testing

RT1: Black Powder Separation Testing

Objective:
To verify that the calculated quantities of black powder are sufficient to shear the retaining shear
pins and separate the vehicle sections.
Tested Items:
• Deployment of the recovery parachutes
• Nose Cone Ejection for payload deployment
Motivation:
• Ensure personnel safety during vehicle launch
• Verify accuracy of black powder calculation techniques
• Ensure success of payload deployment
Success Criteria:

Table 66: RT1 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - All vehicle sections completely separate after
Each team must
black powder ignition and all parachutes end the test
perform a
outside the vehicle.
successful ground
3.2 Incomplete
ejection test for
Fail - Vehicle sections do not completely separate or at
both the drogue and
least on parachute remains inside the vehicle after test
main parachutes.
conclusion.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Fully constructed vehicle airframe
• # 2-56 Nylon shear pin (x10)
• ABS Removable Bulkhead and Screws
• All components of CRAM
• 3/8 in. Eyebolts (x2)
• Recovery Coupling Nut
• Wago 221 Lever Nuts (x2)
• Main Parachute
• Drogue Parachute
• Pilot Chute
• 35 ft. Shock Cord (x2)
• 3/8 in. Quicklinks (x6)
• Nomex Blanket (x2)

178
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Deployment Bag
• Shooter’s wire, approx. 45ft
• Sealing Clay
• 9v Battery
Setup:
1. Fold the main and drogue parachutes according to the parachute folding procedures
described in Section .
2. Fold the two shock cords according to the shock cord folding procedures described in
Section .
3. Secure the ABS removable bulkhead in the fin can using the associated screws
Safety Notes:
• This test involves the use of black powder, a potentially dangerous energetic. The team
launch manager, Dave Brunsting, should prepare and install all black powder charges, as
well as intitiate the charges during testing.
• During black powder ignition, a perimeter of at least 10 ft. around the vehicle must be
maintained by all personnel. Larger perimeters may be established at the discretion of
the launch manager.
Procedure:
1. Tape two 6 in. pairs of shooter’s wire to one of the switch port cutouts on the inside of the
CRAM body, such that they are both capable of being accessed from outside of the rocket
after CRAM installation. Ensure that each pair of shooter’s wire is twisted together at the
switch port.
2. Run one pair of shooter’s wire through one of the wire holes in the CRAM top bulkhead.
Run the other pair through a wire hole in the CRAM bottom bulkhead.
3. Bolt the CRAM bulkheads on to the CRAM body and thread the eyebolts into the inset
coupling nut.
4. Seal any holes remaining holes in the top or bottom bulkheads using clay.
5. Have the team launch manager prepare three black powder charges: a 4.5g charge for the
main parachute compartment and two 1 g charges, one for the drogue compartment and
one for nose cone ejection.
6. Have the team launch manager install the black powder charges in the CRAM charge
wells, connecting to the fed shooter wire using the Wago lever nuts.
7. Twist the assembled CRAM into the matching adapter in the recovery tube.
8. Using quicklinks, connect both shock cords to their respective eyebolts. The drogue
harness should connect between the CRAM bottom bulkhead and the ABS bulkhead,
and the main harness should connect between the CRAM top bulkhead and the main
parachute bulkhead, in the transition section of the vehicle.
9. Connect the folded parachutes to their respective shock cords using quicklinks.
10. Insert the parachutes into the vehicle, taking care to ensure that the parachutes are
completely covered by either a Nomex blanket or deployment bag.
11. Assemble the rest of the vehicle.
12. Insert shear pins into the drilled holes in the airframe, two between the recovery tube and

179
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

the fin can and four between the recovery tube and the transition section.
13. Connect two 15 ft lengths of shooter wire to the exposed wires taped to the CRAM switch
ports.
14. Rest the vehicle horizontally on wood supports.
15. Establish a minimum 10 ft. perimeter around the vehicle
16. The launch manager should connect the first pair of shooter wire to a 9v battery, igniting
the drogue ejection charge.
17. Repeat with the main parachute ejection charge.
18. When the team launch manager has given the all-clear, approach the vehicle to check for
successful separation and main parachute deployment.
19. Repeat steps 1-18 with the Nose Cone ejection charge, taking all the same safety
precautions and following the direction of the team launch manager.
Results: Results to be obtained by February 8, 2020.
RT2: Altimeter Testing
Objective:
To ensure the altimeters are properly powered and respond as expected to flight events.
Tested Items:
• Featherweight Raven3
• Perfectflite Stratologger SL100
Motivation:
• Ensure personnel safety during launch
• Verify reliability of recovery electronics
Success Criteria:
Table 67: RT2 Success Criteria
Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Both drogue and
Success - The both the drogue and main e-match
main parachute
substitutes successfully light on both altimeters.
deployment must
3.4 Incomplete
be initiated by a
Fail - At least one e-match substitute does not light at
commercial
its expected time
altimeter.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Raven3 Altimeter
• Stratologger SL100 Altimeter
• Assembled Altimeter Perfboards w/ Attached Switches (x2)
• 3.7 v LiPo Batteries, 170 mah (x2)
• Small Incandescent Bulbs (x4)
• Stranded Wire, 6 in. (x8)
• USB-MicroUSB cord

180
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Stratologger Interface Adapter

• Laptop with Perfectflite DataCap software and Featherweight Iterface Software
Setup:
1. Ensure that the recovery switches are already installed and soldered in place on the
Altimeter Perfboards, ready to accept the altimeters.
2. Install the altimeters onto the altimeter perfobaord with the attached screw terminals.
3. Use the stranded wire to connect each of the small incandecent bulbs to the altimeters,
in the places described in the recovery circuit diagrams. These will act as e-match
substitutes.
Safety Notes: This test involves the use of lithium-polymer batteries, which can be volatile
and potentially dangerous if used incorrectly. Never short the leads on a LiPo battery. Keep the
batteries in a fire-proof LiPo bag when not in use.
Procedure:
1. Plug each battery’s JST connector into its associated port on both of the perfboards.
2. Power on the altimeters using the recovery activation switches.
3. Plug the Raven altimeter into the laptop using the MicroUSB cable and start the
Featherweight Interface Software.
4. Begin a simulated flight using the altimeter software.
5. Watch the drogue e-match substitute. For a successful test, it should light up as the
simulated vehicle passes its apogee.
6. After the simulated vehicle passes its apogee, watch the main e-match substitute. In a
successful test, this should light up before the simulated vehicle reaches 500 ft. AGL.
7. Repeat steps 3-6 using the Stratologger altimeter in place of the Raven, The Stratologger
Interface Adapter in place of the MicroUSB cable, and the Perfectflite DataCap software
in place of the Featherweight interface software.
Results: Results will be obtained by January 31.
RT3: Telemetry Range and Antenna Test
Objective:
To ensure that the telemetry system will reliably transmit data from the launch vehicle during
the entirety of the mission.
Tested Items:

• Laptops • Transmitter dipole antenna

• Receiver prototype module • Receiver patch antenna
• Transmitter prototype module

Motivation:
• To validate the telemetry system design
• To ensure sufficient range of the telemetry system
Success Criteria:

181
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Table 68: RT3 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - At 1 mile, the transmission success rate is
This test ensures
above 90% AND the received packet data error rate is
that the telemetry
below 10%.
system is functional
Incomplete
and can function
Fail - At 1 mile, the transmission success rate is below
within range of the
90% OR the received packet data error rate is below
launch vehicle
10%.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:

• 2 Laptops • Receiver patch antenna

• Receiver prototype module • 1 ft2 piece of fiberglass
• Transmitter prototype module • 1 ft2 piece of ABS plastic
• Transmitter dipole antenna

Setup:
Two prototype transmitters will be placed at various distances and will attempt to transmit
packets between the modules. Line of sight will be maintained between the transmitter
module and receiver module to mimic the line-of-sight transmission that will occur during
vehicle flight. Transmissions will occur at distances of 0.5 mile, 0.75 miles, and one mile. The
antennas for the transmitter and receiver modules will both be placed approximately 5 ft
above the ground. They will be powered from the laptops that will be used to collect the data.
Because path loss is higher for transmissions close to the ground, this test is expected to be a
worse-case scenario in terms of operating conditions.
Safety Notes:
• All LiPo batteries must be transported in fireproof battery bags. Connections should be
inspected before testing.
Procedure:
1. Take the two prototype transceiver modules and separate them by approximately 0.5 mi
with guaranteed line-of-sight.
2. Position the antennas in the upright position approximately 5 ft above the ground
3. Tilt the transmitter dipole antenna at approximately 60°to the receiver antenna.
4. Attempt to transmit a packet from the transmitter prototype.
5. Check to ensure that the packet was received by the receiver.
6. Save the contents for further analysis.
7. Repeat for a total of 20 trials.
8. Perform another 20 trials while placing a 1 ft2 piece of ABS plastic of plastic in front of the
transmitter antenna.
9. Perform another 20 trials while placing a 1 ft2 piece of fiberglass in front of the transmitter
antenna.

182
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

10. Repeat all 60 trials at 0.75 mi and 1 mi.

11. Sum the number of packets that were received by the receiver prototype and the number
of packets that contained data transmission error. Calculate a transmission success rate
and a packet data error rate.
Results: This test will be completed by January 18-31.

6.1.3 Payload: Deployment Testing

PD1: Free Rotation of Platform

Objective:
To ensure the payload platform can rotate freely with minimal friction inside the payload bay
for orientation purposes.
Tested Items:
• Payload platform and bearing system
Motivation:
• To validate the orientation system design and its loaded CG
Success Criteria:

Table 69: PD1 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
The deployment
system must be able
to orient with the Success - The payload platform freely rotates AND
platform reaching reaches equilibrium at its lowest point.
P.21 equilibrium at its Incomplete
lowest point with Fail - The platform cannot freely rotate OR does not
respect to the reach equilibrium at its lowest point
ground regardless
original orientation.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Payload bay tube
• Fore sliding platform
• Aft stationary platform assembly
• Ballast for UAV and Rover
• UAV
• Rover
• Clamps
• Mounting rig
• Solenoids

183
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Setup: This test will take place in three phases: a simulated rig with ballast, a simulated rig
with the UAV and rover and the full assembly. The setup for the simulated rig will be to have
the whole configuration outside the body tube to observe the test and more easily modify it if
changes are necessary. This will consist of a sturdy mount that the aft bulkhead will be securely
clamped to so that it is completely immobile. The sliding platform will then be secured onto
the stationary platform with bolts. Ballast will be taped to the fixture to simulate the UAV and
rover. For the second trial, the ballast will be replaced with the UAV and rover. The setup for the
full assembly will consist of all the parts being secure within the body tube as they would be in
the full scale flight.
Safety Notes:
• Inspect batteries before use. All LiPo batteries not in use should be transported in fire
proof battery bags.
Procedure:
1. The system is placed at a random orientation.
2. The platform will be released by hand.
3. When the platform reaches equilibrium, the location will be noted.
4. Repeat this with each configuration.
Results: The test will be completed from January 18-31.
PD2: Solenoid Actuation
Objective:
To ensure that the solenoids actuate properly for deployment and retention of the Rover and
UAV sled.
Tested Items:
• Attafruit Medium Solenoids
• UAV Sled
• Rover Body
Motivation:
• To validate the actuation mechanism of the solenoids
• To verify the solenoid properly fits into the UAV Sled and Rover Body
Success Criteria:

Table 70: PD2 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The solenoids ALL retract out of the pin slots
The ROD system AND remain retracted for 30 s AND then re-extend into
restricts motion in the pin slots.
P.22 all directions until Incomplete
signalled to deploy Fail - Some OR All solenoids do not retract out of the
the Rover and UAV pin slots OR do not remain retracted for 30 s, OR do
not re-extend into the pin slots

184
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Test Procedure:
Equipment:

• Solenoids • Battery
• UAV Sled • Microcontroller
• Rover Body • Clamps

Setup:
This test will have two stages: testing solenoid actuation into the Rover Body and testing
solenoid actuation into the UAV sled. A simple code will be written and uploaded to a
microcontroller that will retract the solenoids for 30 s and then extend to solenoids for 45 s to
allow time for the solenoids to cool. The UAV Sled and Rover Body will first be clamped down
and held in place. Then the solenoids will be inserted into the respective pin slots and be
clamped down as well. Once the solenoids are in place, they will be connected to the
microcontroller.
Safety Notes:
• Inspect batteries before use. All LiPo batteries not in use should be transported in fire
proof battery bags.
• Special care will be taken towards the longevity of the solenoid retraction to prevent
overheating.
Procedure:
1. The solenoids will be inserted into the pin slots.
2. The retraction program will be initiated on the microcontroller.
3. The time between retraction and extension will be timed.
4. The solenoid pin will be inspected after solenoid extension.
Results: To be completed between January 18-31.
PD3: Vibration and Motion Restriction of Rover and UAV
Objective:
To validate the retention system and ensure the UAV, Rover, and all components will not move
during flight.
Tested Items:

• Solenoids • Rover
• Stationary platform • UAV
• Sliding platform • ROD system
• UAV sled

Motivation:
• To ensure that the full payload will be retained during launch, flight, and recovery
• To validate the mechanical fail-safe of the solenoids and that they remain stationary
during launch, flight, and recovery

185
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Success Criteria:

Table 71: PD3 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
The deployment
system must restrict
Success - ALL of the payload components are fully
motion of the Rover
retained
P.22 and UAV in all
Incomplete
4.3.7.1 directions until the
Fail - Some OR all of the components are not fully
deployment
retained.
sequence is
initiated.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:

• Solenoids • Stationary Platform

• UAV Sled • UAV
• Rover • Nuts and Bolts
• Sliding Platform

Setup:
The Solenoids will be properly inserted into the slots on the sliding platform. The UAV sled
with the UAV and the Rover will be placed into position on the platform and the solenoids will
be inserted into the respective slots. The sliding platform will then be slide onto the stationary
platform and be secured using the nuts and bolts.
Safety Notes:
• Inspect all ASA components for cracks and deformation.
• Ensure all components are connected securely.
Procedure:
1. Verify all connections and retention pins are properly placed
2. Hold the stationary platform where the bearing would be located
3. Slowly and cautiously rotate the platform
4. Verify minimal motion of the payload
Results: To be completed between February 2-8.
PD4: Deployment of Rover and UAV
Objective:
To ensure that the Rover and UAV can successfully deploy after landing and orientation.
Tested Items:

186
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Rover design • Hope FR RFM95W radio module

• UAV sled & sled/platform interface • Rover crank mechanism

Motivation:
• To validate the deployment signal reception to initiate Rover motion
• To validate the clearance, friction, and stability of the Rover towing mechanism
Success Criteria:

Table 72: PD4 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The Rover receives the activation signal AND
The Rover and UAV successfully tows the UAV out of the payload bay.
remain retained
P.22 Incomplete
until receiving the Fail - The signal does not activate the Rover OR the
activation signal Rover cannot successfully tow the UAV out of the
payload bay

Test Procedure:
Equipment:

• UAV • Solenoids
• UAV Sled • Nuts and Bolts
• Rover • Ground Station
• Sliding Platform • Batteries
• Stationary Platform • Payload Bay

Setup:
The Solenoids will be properly inserted into the slots on the sliding platform. The UAV sled
with the UAV and the Rover will be placed into position on the platform and the solenoids will
be inserted into the respective slots. The sliding platform will then be slide onto the stationary
platform and be secured using the nuts and bolts. The Rover, UAV, and ROD systems will be
connected to the respective batteries. The Ground station will be powered on and
communication established with each system.
Safety Notes:
• Inspect batteries before use. All LiPo batteries not in use should be transported in fire
proof battery bags.
• Special care will be taken towards the longevity of the solenoid retraction to prevent
overheating.
Procedure:
1. Verify all connections and retention pins are properly placed
2. Verify proper connection between components
3. Initiate deployment sequence

187
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Results: To be completed between February 2-8.

6.1.4 Payload: Rover Testing

PRT1: Electrical Connections

Objective:
To validate the electrical connections of the rover electrical components, success of
components communication protocols, and radio communication to the rover.
Tested Items:

• Power Distribution • Radio receiving

• I2C, SPI, UART, PWM protocols

Motivation:
• To verify the connections and operations of the rover electrical components and board
fabrication.
Success Criteria:

Table 73: PRT1 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - A successful test shall verify the correct
Electrical boards
voltage readings on the PCB, verify sensor readings to
shall be isolated to
the PIC32 memory, verify radio communication to the
prevent electrical
rover, and verify PWM output waveforms.
P.4 shorts and ensure Incomplete
signal connections
Fail - The test shall fail if any of the voltage readings,
and communication
sensor readings, radio receiving, or PWM outputs do
protocols.
not match valid and accepted values.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Fully assembled rover printed circuit board (PCB)
• Two 11.1 V Li-Ion batteries
• 8 Channel Saleae Logic Analyzer
• Laptop with MPLABX installed
• PICKIT3 debugger
• Multimeter
• Radio test station circuit with Arduino Uno and RFM95W.
Setup: The rover printed circuit board (PCB) in its fully assembled state shall be placed
securely on an electrostatic discharge (ESD) mat or handled with ESD gloves for the outdoor
GPS test step. Connect the USB end of the PICkit3 to the laptop and start MPLABX. Do not
connect the PICkit3 until instructed in the procedure. Connect the Saleae Logic Analyzer to the

188
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

laptop and begin the Logic program. Turn on the multimeter. Place the two 11.1V batteries on
the ESD mat and do not connect to the board until instructed in the procedure.
Safety Notes: Batteries should be stored in a Li-Po safe bag at all times when not in use. At
any time a battery is out of the safe bag, safety glasses must be worn. Handle all components on
an ESD mat with appropriate wrist strap grounding. For the outdoor GPS test item, transport
the circuit using an ESD bag and handle the circuit wearing ESD gloves. Ensure batteries are
connected according to their proper polarity to avoid damage to the battery and circuit.
Procedure:
1. Connect the two 11.1V batteries to their corresponding header connectors. CAUTION:
Batteries must be connected in the proper polarity indicated or damage may occur to
board components.
2. Set the multimeter to measure a DC voltage. Connect the multimeter ground lead to the
ground of the 3.3V two pin header, and the positive lead to the positive of the 3.3V pin
header. Verify the multimeter reads +3.3V. Repeat for the 5V and 11.1V (Sabertooth) two
pin headers.
3. Connect the PICkit3 to the corresponding header on the rover PCB. Download the test
program to configure the PIC32 and send a single command over I2C to the BNO055 to
read acceleration and magnetometer values and store in an appropriate register. Verify
the presence of a valid reading.
4. Download the test program to the PIC32 to communicate with the GPS module over
UART. The GPS module should automatically begin transmitting readings when
measured. Verify GPS readings are properly stored in the PIC32 register within 5 minutes
of outdoor runtime.
5. Power on RFM95W test stand connected to a lab PC. Download onto the Arduino Uno a
program to begin transmitting the command “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy
dog 0123456789”. Download the test program to the PIC32 to set the radio module to
receive mode over SPI. Verify the reception of the test signal stored in a register.
6. Connect GND pin of the Saleae Logic Analyzer to one of the GND header pins on the
board. Connect pins 0 and 1 of the logic analyzer to PWM pin, pin 3, on each of the
sample retrieval servo connectors. Connect pins 2 and 3 to the pins of the Sabertooth
PWM connector. Download the program to the PIC32 to output a 50% duty cycle PWM
signal on each of the PWM pins. Verify the expected 5V signal output on the logic analyzer.
Repeat with a 25%, 75%, and 100% duty cycle.
Results: This result has not yet been completed. This test shall be completed upon assembly
of the rover PCB in the coming weeks.

6.1.5 Payload: UAV Testing

PUT1: Manual Flight

Objective:
To ensure that the UAV manual override is functional and that successful flight can be achieved.
Tested Items:

189
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Flight controller • UAV flight stability

• RC transmitter • UAV flight maneuvers
• UAV RC receiver

Motivation:
• To validate the manual override function of the UAV
• To ensure the UAV flight is stable
• To validate that the desired flight maneuvers are successful
Success Criteria:

Table 74: PUT1 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The UAV is manually flown and performs all
desired maneuvers AND the UAV has stable flight.
The UAV must have
P.14 a manual override Incomplete
Fail - The UAV cannot be manually flown OR cannot
switch.
perform desired flight maneuvers OR is unstable
during flight.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• UAV
• Controller
• RC Transmitter
Setup:
1. Ensure that area is free of bystanders and hazards to the UAV (e.g. trees and poles).
2. Power on UAV and ensure that the RC transmitter and receiver are connected. If they do
not, follow the manufacturer’s directions to bind them.
Safety Notes: Ensure that all nearby personnel, including the UAV operator, maintain a safe
distance from the UAV at all times and that the test is not conducted in the vicinity of bystanders.
Proper PPE (safety glasses) must be worn while the UAV is powered.
Procedure:
1. Gradually apply throttle to UAV until it begins to lift off.
2. Continue applying constant throttle until UAV reaches an altitude of five feet, then
maintain a hover for five seconds.
3. Fly the UAV ten feet in a straight line.
4. Rotate the UAV 90◦ in place.
5. Land the UAV safely and ensure that the motors stop rotating before approaching the UAV.
Results: To be completed January 18-31.
PUT2: Autonomous Flight

190
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Objective:
To validate the UAV autonomous flight capabilities and ensure stable flight.
Tested Items:
• UAV receiver from ground station signal and autonomous response
• UAV flight stability
• UAV flight maneuvers
Motivation:
• To validate the UAV’s autonomous flight capabilities
• To ensure the UAV’s flight is stable
• To validate that the desired flight maneuvers are successful
Success Criteria:

Table 75: PUT2 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The UAV receives and obeys commands from
the ground station AND has a stable flight with
The UAV must use a
successful flight maneuvers.
P.13 commercial flight Incomplete
controller
Fail - The UAV does not follow ground station
commands OR has unstable flight

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• UAV
• UAV RC receiver
• Ground station
• Ground station RC transmitter
• Manual controller
• Manual controller RC transmitter
Setup:
• Ensure that the test area is free of bystanders and hazards to the UAV, such as trees and
poles.
• Turn on UAV and ensure that the UAV’s receiver is connected to both the manual
controller’s transmitter and the ground station’s transmitter.
Safety Notes: Ensure that manual override switch is functional before testing autonomous
flight. All personnel must remain a safe distance from the UAV while the UAV is powered on.
Procedure: Program the UAV to do the following autonomously:
1. Take off from the ground
2. Ascend to an altitude of five feet
3. Hover at this altitude for five seconds

191
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

4. Travel in a straight line for ten feet

5. Rotate 90◦ in place
6. Continue in the same direction for ten feet
7. Land safely and shut down motors
Results: To be completed January 18-31.
PUT3: Transmit Video to Ground Station
Objective:
To ensure successful video transmission from the UAV to the ground station for target detection.
Tested Items:
• Ground station video receiver
• UAV video transmitter
Motivation:
• To ensure successful video transmission, including sensor data
• To validate target detection system
Success Criteria:

Table 76: PUT3 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The UAV transmits video during flight AND
the ground station successfully receives the video AND
The Target
the ground station successfully reads sensor data from
Detection system
the UAV.
P.23 must correctly Incomplete
identify the closest
Fail - The UAV cannot transmit video during flight OR
CFEA.
the ground station cannot receive video OR ground
station cannot read sensor data

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Ground station video receiver
• Ground station display
• UAV video transmitter
Setup:
1. Place ground station and UAV approximately 25 feet apart and power on both systems.
2. Ensure that the ground station’s video receiver connects to the UAV’s video transmitter
and the ground station’s display is connected to the video receiver.
Safety Notes: Ensure that sufficient distance is between the ground station and the UAV so as to
avoid overloading the video receiver. Because the RC transmitters for the ground station and the
manual controller are powered down, the UAV is safe to approach but should still be handled
with caution.

192
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Procedure:
1. Ensure that the video feed from the UAV’s camera is visible on the ground station’s display.
2. Explore Ardupilot’s On-Screen Display settings to ensure that the ground station is
receiving sensor data from the UAV and that all sensors are connected properly and
configured correctly in Ardupilot.
Results:
PUT4: Detection of Simulated CFEA
Objective:
To verify that the target detection system can detect the CFEA.
Tested Items:
• UAV CADDX Turbo EOS2 camera
• Target detection code
Motivation:
• To validate the target detection system algorithm and design
Success Criteria:

Table 77: PUT4 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The target detection algorithm correctly
The target detection
identifies the CFEA.
system must
P.23 Incomplete
correctly identify
Fail - The target detection system does not correctly
the closest CFEA
identify the CFEA.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• UAV
• Ground station
• Manual controller
• CFEA
Setup:
1. Prepare area for UAV flight (ensure that area is clear of bystanders and hazards).
2. Place CFEA near designated UAV launch site.
3. Prepare UAV and ground station for takeoff (power both systems on and ensure RC and
video connections function properly).
Safety Notes: Ensure that all personnel remain a safe distance from the UAV at all times.
Procedure:
1. Ensure that the ground station display shows the video feed from the UAV.
2. Launch UAV to an altitude of 25 feet.

193
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3. Fly UAV to CFEA while observer watches the ground station’s display to ensure that a false
CFEA detection is not reported prematurely.
4. With CFEA in frame, observer ensures that CFEA detection algorithm successfully
identifies CFEA.
5. Land UAV on CFEA and shut down motors.
Results: To be completed January 18-31.
PUT5: Landing Location Identification
Objective:
To ensure that the target detection system correctly identifies the farthest corner from the
launch vehicle landing site of the CFEA for UAV landing.
Tested Items:
• Target detection algorithm
Motivation:
• To ensure that the UAV will land far away from the operating area of the Rover
Success Criteria:

Table 78: PUT5 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The target detection system correctly
Target Detection
identifies the proper landing corner of the CFEA
identifies correct
P.24 Incomplete
corner of CFEA to
Fail - The target detection system does not identify the
land on.
proper landing corner of the CFEA.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• UAV
• Ground station
• Manual controller
• CFEA
Setup:
1. Prepare area for UAV flight (ensure that area is clear of bystanders and hazards).
2. Place CFEA near designated UAV launch site.
3. Prepare UAV and ground station for takeoff (power both systems on and ensure RC and
video connections function properly).
Safety Notes: Ensure that all personnel remain a safe distance from the UAV at all times.
Procedure:
1. Ensure that the ground station display shows the video feed from the UAV.
2. Launch UAV to an altitude of 25 feet.

194
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

3. Fly UAV to CFEA while observer watches the ground station’s display to ensure that a false
CFEA detection is not reported prematurely.
4. With CFEA in frame, observer ensures that CFEA detection algorithm successfully
identifies CFEA.
5. Use ground station display to land UAV on CFEA at position designated by CFEA detection
algorithm.
6. Land UAV on CFEA and shut down motors.
7. Verify that CFEA detection algorithm selected correct corner of CFEA.
Results: To be completed February 2-8.
PUT6: Detection of a Simulated CFEA with UAV
Objective:
To validate the target detection system when receiving video from the UAV
Tested Items:
• Target detection algorithm
Motivation:
• To verify the success of the CFEA detection with data from the UAV
Success Criteria:

Table 79: PUT6 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The CFEA is correctly identified from the
Target Detection
ground with the UAV camera station
P.23 correctly identifies Incomplete
the closest CFEA.
Fail - The CFEA is not correctly identified.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• CFEA
• Camera
Setup:
Safety Notes:
Procedure:
1. Place CFEA in sunny area.
2. Capture several images of CFEA from different angles and showing all or part of CFEA.
3. Move CFEA to shaded and semi-shaded areas, repeating step 2 each time.
4. Analyze results
Results: To be complete February 2-8.

195
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6.1.6 ABS Testing

ABT1: Sub-scale Launch

Objective:
To verify that the addition of drag tabs to the sub-scale launch vehicle decreases apogee while
maintaining stability, and to test the functionality of the chosen sensors and microcontroller.
Tested Items:
• Apogee change of sub-scale launch vehicle when drag tabs are implemented
• Stability of flight when drag tabs are implemented
• Capabilities of BNO055 accelerometer, MPL3115 barometer, ADXL345, and Raspberry Pi
microcontroller working in sequence
Motivation:
• To verify that the addition of drag tabs lowers the apogee of the launch vehicle as expected
• To ensure that the addition of drag tabs does not cause instability during flight
• To verify that the chosen sensors and microcontroller work in sequence to provide
sensible flight data at an acceptable frequency
Success Criteria:

Table 80: ABT1 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - The recorded apogee for half extension and
The addition of the full extension each subsequently decrease apogee by
drag tabs will lower 80 feet or more.
V.4 Pass
the apogee of the
launch vehicle. Fail - There is no significant apogee decrease resulting
from the addition of the drag tabs.
The addition of the Success - The launch vehicle undergoes successful
drag tabs will not flights with the drag tabs attached.
V.10, V.14 negatively affect the Pass
stability of the Fail - The launch vehicle experiences an unstable flight
launch vehicle. and fails with the drag tabs attached.
Success - The data collected by the sensors is sensible,
The ABS sensors and is collected at a frequency of at least 50 Hz.
and microcontroller
N/A Pass
collect data Fail - The data collected by the sensors is not
effectively. physically accurate, or the data is collected at a
frequency below 50 Hz.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Sub-scale launch vehicle
• 3 removable couplers with 2:5 scale drag tab models
• Sensor sled with Raspberry Pi, BNO055, MPL3115, ADXL345, and 3.7V 250 mAh battery
attached

196
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

• Computer with micro SD card reader

Setup: Two sets of 2:5 scale model drag tabs were fabricated out of Nylon 6/6 to best
replicate the induced drag that will be generated with full-scale ABS. One model represents the
drag tabs at full extension, and the other represents them at half extension. These were
epoxied to removable couplers that could be attached and removed at the CP of the sub-scale
launch vehicle, along with a third coupler that sat flush to the vehicle body to represent flight
without ABS. The fabricated sub-scale drag tabs are shown in Figure 139, and are shown
epoxied to the coupler in Figure 140. Additionally, a sensor sled was constructed out of balsa
wood to house the microcontroller, battery, and sensors for ABS, as well as all Recovery
electronics. It consisted of two bulkheads and a 5 in. web to which all components were
secured. This sensor sled was integrated into the sub-scale launch vehicle in the payload bay,
and was secured by a screw at its aft bulkhead.

Figure 139: Sub-scale drag tabs

197
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Figure 140: Sub-scale drag tabs on coupler

Safety Notes: Before and after flight, it was essential to inspect the LiPo battery for damage,
swelling, or other abnormalities. If any of these were to be observed, the battery would be
placed in a fireproof battery bag.
Procedure: The full sub-scale launch procedure is outlined in the Vehicles Test Plan section.
Three sub-scale launches were conducted, one with each coupler, in order to represent a flight
without ABS, a flight with drag tabs at half extension, and a flight with drag tabs at full
extension. For each of these flights, the LiPo battery was plugged into the power booster, and
an LED verified that power was being supplied and that the Raspberry Pi was taking data from
the sensors. After this, the sensor sled was integrated into the launch vehicle as described in
the Setup section, and the launch was conducted. Once the vehicle was recovered, the sensor
sled was extracted, and the battery was unplugged. The micro SD card was plugged into a
computer to verify that data was collected as expected. This procedure was then repeated for
two more flights with the other two couplers attached.
Results: Upon inspection of the sensor data, the ability of the ABS to decrease the apogee of
the launch vehicle was verified. For reference, the recorded apogees for each of the launches is
shown in Table 81.

Table 81: Recorded Altitude at Apogee for Sub-scale Flights

Flight No Tabs Half Tabs Full Tabs

Altitude (ft) 1366 1126.5 1010

198
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

The stability of the launch vehicle was not compromised by the implementation of the drag
tabs, as was seen in the steady flight path shown by the sensor data, and the visibly stable flight
observed at launch. The sensors successfully collected data at a sampling rate of above 50 Hz,
and the data is physically sensible.
ABT2: Mechanism and Motor Ground Test
Objective:
To verify that the fully constructed mechanism and motor will function together as intended to
produce drag tab actuation.
Tested Items:
• Servo motor rotation angles in response to PWM signals
• Drag tab extension resulting from servo motor rotation
• Servo motor ability to overcome the internal friction of the mechanism
Success Criteria:

Table 82: ABT2 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - When the PWM signal is sent, the servo
motor rotates to the correct angle despite resistance
The servo motor will
from mechanism friction.
rotate to the
V.4 Incomplete
expected angle for a
Fail - The servo motor rotates to an angle too small, or
given PWM signal.
the servo motor stalls due to inability to overcome
internal friction.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Fully constructed ABS
• Raspberry Pi programmed to take a simulated flight as an input at 100 Hz
Setup: The Raspberry Pi will be programmed to output PWM signals that are expected to
produce known rotation amounts. It will be connected to the servo motor according to the
circuit diagram, and the servo motor will be connected to the mechanism central hub.
Safety Notes: A safe distance must be kept from the mechanism during the test, as injury
could result from the rapidly moving components. Ensure that power is cut from the servo
motor before handling the mechanism.
Procedure: Upon booting up the Raspberry Pi by plugging in the battery to its power booster,
a series of PWM signals will be sent to the servo motor. Visual inspection will verify whether the
correct servo rotation angle, and resulting drag tab extension, were achieved.
Results: The test will be performed once the full-scale construction of the mechanism is
completed. Results must be verified before the first full-scale flight attempt on February 8th.
ABT3: Control Structure Ground Test
Objective:

199
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

To verify that the fully constructed ABS is able to filter noisy data and undergo an entire
simulated flight in which it needs to decrease velocity using the PID control law.
Tested Items:
• Kalman filter
• Flight stage awareness
• Response of the mechanism to a simulated flight
Success Criteria:

Table 83: ABT3 Success Criteria

Requirement ID Description Pass/Fail Criteria Result
Success - Flight data passed through the Kalman filter
The Kalman filter is smoothed out and does not include extraneous data
successfully points.
N/A Pass
eliminates noise in
flight data. Fail - The Kalman filter is unable to eliminate noise in
flight data.
Success - The PID algorithm produces drag tab
The system
extensions in response to the inputted flight data.
successfully
V.4 responds to an Incomplete
Fail - The drag tabs do not fully retract when needed,
entire simulated
or they do not actuate correctly in response to the
flight
simulated flight.

Test Procedure:
Equipment:
• Fully constructed mechanism and servo motor
• Raspberry Pi programmed to output specific PWM signals
Setup: The entire system will be constructed exactly as it will be for full-scale flight. A
simulated flight with noise inserted will be uploaded to the Raspberry Pi to be read in place of
real-time sensor data.
Safety Notes: A safe distance must be kept from the system during the test, as injury could
result from the rapidly moving components. Ensure that the program on the Raspberry Pi has
ended before handling the system.
Procedure: Upon booting up the Raspberry Pi by plugging in the battery to its power booster
and flipping the "ARM" switch, simulated flight data will be passed through the Kalman filter
which was previously verified. The system will experience the same launch cycle it should see
in a real flight, and will keep track of the flight state that it is in. During the burnout to apogee
phase, the team will visually verify that the drag tabs are actuating in response to the simulated
velocity, which will be an overshoot of the desired velocity. After the program is finished, the
output data will be inspected to ensure that the drag tabs were fully retracted during all flight
states except for burnout to apogee. The data will also be inspected to ensure that the drag tab
extensions make sense given the velocity overshoots.

200
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Results: The test will be performed once the full-scale construction of the mechanism is
completed. Results must be verified before the first full-scale flight attempt on February 8th.

201
 University of Notre Dame
6.2 Requirements & Verifications

6.2.1 NASA Requirements

Table 84: General Requirements

Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
Students on the team will do 100% of the project and flight NDRT is completely student led. Team officers will delegate all work to student
1.1 preparation (except for items to be done by the team’s mentor). X X members and verify students conduct all activities except those that mentors Complete
Teams will submit new work. are required to conduct (i.e. assembling motors, handling ejection charges).
The team will provide and maintain a project plan to include, but
Team captains are actively maintaining a project plan including a GANTT chart
not limited to the following items: project milestones, budget and
1.2 X for scheduling milestone targets, team budget, and software such as Slack for In Progress
community support, checklists, personnel assignments, STEM
organization and task delegation.
engagement events, and risks and mitigations.
Foreign National (FN) team members must be identified by the
Design team leads will collect team member information, inform Foreign
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and may or may not have access to
Nationals of the launch week restrictions, and ensure all Foreign Nationals
1.3 certain activities during launch week due to security restrictions. In X Complete
attending launch week are properly registered in time to attend available
addition, FN’s may be separated from their team during certain
activities.
activities on site at Marshall Space Flight Center.
The team must identify all team members attending launch week
activities by CDR. Team members will include: Students actively Team members, mentors, and educators will be required to express interest in
1.4 X Complete
engaged in the project throughout the entire year, one mentor, and attending launch week prior to CDR submission.
no more than two adult educators.
An Educational Outreach officer has been elected and will communicate
The team will engage a minimum of 200 participants in educational, outreach activities with community partners and team members. Educational
1.5 X Complete
hands-on STEM activities by FRR. Engagement Activity Reports will accurately describe outreach activities and
community impact.
The team will establish a social media presence to inform the public A Social Media Manager has been elected and will maintain the team’s online
1.6 X Complete
about team activities. presence and interaction with the public.
Teams will email all deliverables to the NASA project management Team Captains will confirm deliverables are delivered via email by the deadline
1.7 X In Progress
team by the deadline specified in the handbook for each milestone. and will confirm receipt with the NASA project management team.
Documentation will be prepared using Overleaf and Google Suite products
1.8 All deliverables must be in PDF format. X accessed via an academic license. All documentation shall be compiled into a Complete
PDF format.
In every report, teams will provide a table of contents including Documentation prepared using Overleaf will contain a table of contents and
1.9 X Complete
major sections and their respective sub-sections. sections will be updated automatically to ensure accuracy.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

In every report, the team will include the page number at the bottom Documentation prepared using Overleaf will be formatted to include the page
1.10 X Complete
of the page. number at the bottom of the page.
NDRT maintains a set of teleconferencing equipment and will verify its
The team will provide any computer equipment necessary to
1.11 X X functionality prior to each presentation. The team will reserve a room in the In Progress
perform a video teleconference with the review panel.
college of engineering two weeks prior to each presentation.
All teams will be required to use the launch pads provided by The launch vehicle shall be designed to launch with the required launch pads
1.12 X Complete
Student Launch’s launch services provider. and rails as provided by the launch service provider.
Each team must identify a “mentor” as defined in the Student
1.13 X NDRT works with a mentor who meets all requirements. Complete
Launch Handbook.
202
 Table 85: NASA Launch Vehicle Requirements

University of Notre Dame

Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
Accurate simulations of the vehicle design will be created in RockSim and
The vehicle will deliver the payload to an apogee altitude between OpenRocket to project the vehicle apogee and ensure the vehicle will be within
2.1 X X X In Progress
3,500 and 5,500 ft AGL. the required range and projected to hit the set apogee target. Test flights will be
performed to demonstrate this.
Teams shall identify their target altitude goal at the PDR milestone. Analysis of the preliminary vehicle and payload design and dimensions were
2.2 The declared target altitude will be used to determine the team’s X X used to set the final target altitude. The target altitude was declared in the PDR Complete
altitude score during Launch Week. report to be 4,444 ft.
The team will select a commercially available barometric altimeter and verify
The vehicle will carry one commercially available, barometric with team mentors and launch managers that the selected altimeter is a reliable
2.3 altimeter for recording the official altitude used in determining the X selection. The team will be using three altimeters for deployment redundancy, In Progress
Altitude Award winner. so one altimeter will be identified to the launch managers as the scoring
altimeter.
The vehicle will be designed to be reusable. Extensive ground testing of recovery
and payload systems will be conducted to ensure written procedures allow for a
2.4 The launch vehicle will be designed to be recoverable and reusable. X X In Progress
recoverable and reusable vehicle and payload. This will be verified during full
scale flight tests.
The team will verify during the design and fabrication phases of development
2.5 The launch vehicle will have a maximum of 4 independent sections. X In Progress
that the vehicle has a maximum of 4 independent sections.
Coupler/airframe shoulders which are located at in-flight separation Team will verify that coupler/airframe shoulders at in-flight separation points
2.5.1 X In Progress
points will be at least 1 body diameter in length. are at least 1 body diameter in length.
Nosecone shoulders which are located at in-flight separation points Team will verify that nosecone shoulders at in-flight separation points will be at
2.5.2 X In Progress
will be at least 1/2 body diameter in length. least 1/2 body diameter in length.
Systems and Safety team will prepare launch day procedures which shall be fully
The launch vehicle will be capable of being prepared for flight at the practiced (with the exception of arming any energetics) prior to the first launch
2.6 X X In Progress
launch site within 2 hours of the time the FAA flight waiver opens. day. Full scale test flights will be used to ensure the vehicle is prepared within 2
hours.
During the design phase analysis will be conducted on the power draw of
The launch vehicle and payload will be capable of remaining in system components and available capacity of on-board batteries. Testing of the
launch-ready configuration on the pad for a minimum of 2 hours vehicle and payload systems will be performed to ensure they are capable of
2.7 X X In Progress
without losing the functionality of any critical on-board remaining in a launch-ready configuration for at least 3 hours while still having
components. enough capacity to perform the maximum length of the mission without risk of
losing power.
The launch vehicle will be capable of being launched by a standard The vehicle will be designed to launch with a standard 12 V DC firing system.
2.8 12 V DC firing system, provided by the NASA-designated launch X X The team will work with our launch manager to ensure compatibility prior to In Progress
services provider. demonstration flights.
The launch vehicle will require no external circuitry or special
The team will work with the launch manager to ensure compatibility without
2.9 ground support equipment to initiate launch (other than what is X X In Progress
external circuitry.
provided by the launch services provider).

2019-20 Critical Design Review

The launch vehicle will use a commercially available solid motor
The team will review NAR, TRA, and CAR certifications to ensure the selected
2.10 propulsion system using APCP, which is approved and certified by X In Progress
motor is in compliance.
the NAR, TRA, and/or the CAR.
2.10.1 Final motor choices will be declared by the CDR milestone. X Final motor is the L1395 Blue Streak Complete
Any motor change after CDR must be approved by the NASA RSO All motor changes requested after the CDR milestone will be requested with
2.10.2 and will only be approved if the change is for the sole purpose of X X accompanying analysis demonstrating a safety derived reasoning. The team In Progress
increasing the safety margin. accepts a penalty regardless of the reasoning if the change is approved.
The team shall design the vehicle as a single stage with a motor in accordance
2.11 The launch vehicle will be limited to a single stage. X In progress
with Req. 2.10
The total impulse provided by a University launch vehicle will not As a University launch team, the team shall select a motor providing a total
2.12 X In Progress
exceed 5,120 Ns (L-class). impulse which does not exceed 5,120 Ns (L class).
Pressure vessels on the vehicle will be approved by the RSO and will
2.13 X The pressure vessels will be inspected and approved by the RSO prior to launch. In Progress
meet the criteria outlined in Req. 2.13.1-2.13.3.
The minimum pressure vessel FOS will be 4:1 with supporting The team shall design all pressure vessels on the vehicle with a minimum FOS of
2.13.1 X In Progress
design documentation included in all milestone reviews. 4:1 with supporting analysis.
203

Each pressure vessel will include a pressure relief valve that sees the All pressure vessels will include pressure relief valves. Analysis will be performed
2.13.2 full pressure of the tank and is capable of withstanding the X to ensure the valve sees the full pressure of the tank and is capable of In Progress
maximum pressure and flow rate of the tank. withstanding maximum pressure and flow rates.
 University of Notre Dame
Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
The full pedigree of the tank will be described, including the
Documentation shall be maintained on the history of the tank, including all
2.13.3 application for which the tank was designed and the history of the X In Progress
information described in the NASA SL Handbook.
tank as defined in the NASA SL Handbook.
The launch vehicle will have a minimum static stability margin of 2.0 The team shall analyze the vehicle design using software such as OpenRocket
2.14 X In Progress
at the point of rail exit. and RockSim to verify a static stability margin of 2.0 at the point of rail exit.
All structural protuberance on the vehicle including but not limited to ABS shall
Any structural protuberance on the rocket will be located aft of the
2.15 X X X be located aft of the burnout center of gravity as determined by analysis and In Progress
burnout center of gravity.
center of gravity testing.
Vehicle design softwares OpenRocket and RockSim shall be used to ensure the
The launch vehicle will accelerate to a minimum velocity of 52 fps at
2.16 X X X vehicle will accelerate to a minimum velocity of 52 fps at the rail exit. This will In Progress
rail exit.
be demonstrated at full scale launches by analyzing recorded flight data.
All teams will successfully launch and recover a subscale model of The team has launched and recovered a subscale model of the rocket prior to
2.17 X Complete
their rocket prior to CDR. CDR.
The subscale model should resemble and perform as similarly as
The subscale model was designed to be as accurately resembling the full scale
2.17.1 possible to the full-scale model, however, the full-scale will not be X Complete
model as possible, and was a separate vehicle from the full scale.
used as the subscale model.
The subscale model will carry an altimeter capable of recording the The subscale model was designed with a payload section for carrying the same
2.17.2 X Complete
model’s apogee altitude. altimeter selected for scoring purposes in the full scale rocket.
The subscale rocket must be a newly constructed rocket, designed Team leaders ensured that the subscale rocket was newly constructed based on
2.17.3 X Complete
and built specifically for this year’s project. this year’s design.
A post launch assessment with test results and altimeter data has been
2.17.4 Proof of a successful flight shall be supplied in the CDR report. X Complete
published in this report
All teams will complete demonstration flights as outlined in Req. The team shall complete demonstration flights under the supervision of team
2.18 X Incomplete
2.18.1-1.18.2.4. launch manager Dave Brunsting and the RSO.
All teams will successfully launch and recover their full-scale rocket The full scale vehicle shall be launched and safely recovered prior to FRR to
prior to FRR in its final flight configuration. The rocket flown must verify the vehicle metrics listed in the NASA SL Handbook. The rocket flown
2.18.1 be the same rocket to be flown on launch day. The criteria outlined X shall be the final fight configuration and all major vehicle or payload changes Incomplete
in Req. 2.18.1.1-2.18.19 must be met. Req. details can be found in shall be approved by the NASA Student Launch team and require a re-flight in
the NASA SL Handbook. accordance with the vehicle demonstration deadlines.
The vehicle and recovery system shall function safely as designed and meet the
2.18.1.1 The vehicle and recovery system will have functioned as designed. X In Progress
relevant launch requirements as determined by collected flight data.
The full-scale rocket must be a newly constructed rocket, designed Team leaders shall ensure that the full-scale rocket is newly constructed,
2.18.1.2 X In Progress
and built specifically for this year’s project. designed and built for this year.
The payload does not have to be flown during the full-scale Vehicle The team shall inspect whether the payload is flight-ready prior to the full-scale
2.18.1.3 X Incomplete
Demonstration Flight. Req. 2.18.1.3.1 and 2.18.1.3.2 still apply. demonstration flight.
If the payload is not flown, mass simulators will be used to simulate If the payload is not flown, an appropriate mass simulator will be secured in the
2.18.1.3.1 X Incomplete
the payload mass. same section as the payload to simulate payload mass.
The mass simulators will be located in the same approximate Mass simulators shall be secured in the same approximate location as the

2019-20 Critical Design Review

2.18.1.3.2 X Incomplete
location on the rocket as the missing payload mass. payload.
If the payload changes the external surfaces of the rocket or manages
All payload systems which alter the external surfaces of the rocket or manage
2.18.1.4 the total energy of the vehicle, those systems will be active during X Incomplete
the total vehicle energy shall be active during full-scale demonstration flights.
the full-scale Vehicle Demonstration Flight.
Teams shall fly the launch day motor for the Vehicle Demonstration
Team shall fly the selected launch day motor for the demonstration flight. The
Flight. The team may request a waiver for the use of an alternative
team shall request a waiver for using an alternative motor well in advance of the
2.18.1.5 motor in advance if the home launch field cannot support the full X Incomplete
flight if extenuating circumstances arise. Team shall consult with launch
impulse of the launch day motor or in other extenuating
manager Dave Brunsting prior to making any such request.
circumstances.
The vehicle must be flown in its fully ballasted configuration during The vehicle shall be flown in its fully ballasted configuration during the
2.18.1.6 the full-scale test flight. Additional ballast may not be added without X full-scale test flight. The team will minimize the amount of ballast required Incomplete
a re-flight of the full-scale launch vehicle. during the design and launch preparation phases.
After successfully completing the full-scale demonstration flight, the Systems and Safety officers shall enforce requirements that the launch vehicle
2.18.1.7 launch vehicle or any of its components will not be modified without X and its components are not handled or modified by team members following In Progress
the concurrence of the NASA RSO. flight without the approval of the NASA or local launch site RSO.
204

Proof of a successful flight shall be supplied in the FRR report. A post launch assessment with test results and altimeter data shall be supplied
2.18.1.8 X Incomplete
Altimeter data output is required to meet this requirement. in the FRR report.
 University of Notre Dame
Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
Vehicle Demonstration flights must be completed by the FRR
submission deadline. No exceptions will be made. If the Student The team shall conduct a vehicle demonstration flight prior to the FRR
Launch office determines that a Vehicle Demonstration Re-flight is deadlines. The team acknowledges that no exceptions shall be made and
2.18.1.9 X Incomplete
necessary, then an extension may be granted (for re-flight only). extensions shall only be considered for re-flights seeking to demonstrate
Teams completing a required re-flight must submit an FRR improved vehicle safety and payload functionality.
Addendum by the FRR Addendum deadline.
Payload Demonstration Flight - All teams will successfully launch
and recover their full-scale rocket containing the completed payload
he team shall complete a payload demonstration flight prior to the Payload
2.18.2 prior to the Payload Demonstration Flight deadline, further X Incomplete
Demonstration Flight deadline.
described in the NASA SL Handbook. Requirements 2.18.2.1-2.18.2.4
shall be met.
The payload shall be designed to be fully retained until the intended point of
The payload must be fully retained until the intended point of
deployment and all retention mechanisms must function as designed without
deployment (if applicable), all retention mechanisms must function
2.18.2.1 X X sustaining damage requiring repair inhibiting the reusability of the payload and In Progress
as designed, and the retention mechanism must not sustain damage
vehicle, in accordance with Req. 2.4. This will be demonstrated during the
requiring repair.
full-scale flight tests.
The team shall fly the final active payload. Any changes to the payload following
2.18.2.2 The payload flown must be the final, active version. X the flight will require NASA Student Launch team approval and re-flight in Incomplete
accordance with the demonstration flight deadlines.
If the above criteria are met during the original Vehicle
Demonstration Flight, occurring prior to the FRR deadline and the The team shall review the requirements and flight performance following the
2.18.2.3 X Incomplete
information is included in the FRR package, the additional flight and Vehicle Demonstration flight and determine if an additional flight is required.
FRR Addendum are not required.
Payload Demonstration Flights must be completed by the FRR The team shall complete payload demonstration flights prior to the FRR
2.18.2.4 X Incomplete
Addendum deadline. Addendum deadline. The team acknowledges no extensions will be granted.
An FRR Addendum will be required for any team completing a
The team shall complete an FRR Addendum for any payload demonstration or
2.19 Payload Demonstration Flight or NASA required Vehicle X Incomplete
vehicle demonstration re-flights after the FRR deadline.
Demonstration Re-flight after the submission of the FRR Report.
Teams required to complete a Vehicle Demonstration Re-Flight and
The team shall complete a vehicle demonstration re-flight and FRR addendum
2.19.1 failing to submit the FRR Addendum by the deadline will not be X Incomplete
by the deadline as necessary or forfeit the permission to fly at launch week.
permitted to fly the vehicle at launch week.
Teams who successfully complete a Vehicle Demonstration Flight
but fail to qualify the payload by satisfactorily completing the The team shall complete a successful payload demonstration flight prior to the
2.19.2 X Incomplete
Payload Demonstration Flight requirement will not be permitted to Payload Demonstration Flight deadline.
fly the payload at launch week.
If the payload demonstration flight is not fully successful, the team shall assess
Teams who complete a Payload Demonstration Flight which is not
the failures and petition the NASA RSO for permission to fly the paylaod at
2.19.3 fully successful may petition the NASA RSO for permission to fly the X Incomplete
launch week by preparing documentation about the failures, their risk analysis,
payload at launch week.
and steps that can be taken to resolve the failures safely prior to launch week.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

The team’s name and launch day contact information shall be in or
on the rocket airframe as well as in or on any section of the vehicle
he team shall include team information including name and contact
that separates during flight and is not tethered to the main airframe.
2.20 X information on the external of the vehicle by incorporating the information into Incomplete
This information shall be included in a manner that allows the
the vehicle paint or applying external labels.
information to be retrieved without the need to open or separate the
vehicle.
The Safety and Systems team shall verify that all lithium polymer batteries in the
All Lithium Polymer batteries will be sufficiently protected from
vehicle are sufficiently protected from impact with the ground and shall be
impact with the ground and will be brightly colored, clearly marked
2.21 X clearly labeled with bright colors as a fire hazard. The team shall use fire-proof Incomplete
as a fire hazard, and easily distinguishable from other payload
lithium polymer battery carrying cases for transporting and storing batteries
hardware.
before and after the flight.
The listed vehicle prohibitions shall be inspected prior to all flights to ensure the
2.22 Vehicle Prohibitions X Incomplete
vehicle is in compliance.
The launch vehicle will not utilize forward canards. Camera
The vehicle will not utilize forward canards. If camera housings are used the
housings will be exempted, provided the team can show that the
2.22.1 X X team shall provide computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis and a subscale Incomplete
housing(s) causes minimal aerodynamic effect on the rocket’s
launch demonstrating the housing does not affect vehicle stability.
stability.
205

2.22.2 The launch vehicle will not utilize forward firing motors. X The vehicle will not utilize forward firing motors. Complete
 University of Notre Dame
Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
The vehicle motor documentation shall be inspected to verify it does not expel
The launch vehicle will not utilize motors that expel titanium
2.22.3 X titanium sponges. This shall be verified with the approval of team launch Incomplete
sponges.
manager Dave Brunsting.
2.22.4 The launch vehicle will not utilize hybrid motors. X The vehicle shall not utilize hybrid motors. Complete
The vehicle shall not utilize a cluster of motors. See Section 3 for details on the
2.22.5 The launch vehicle will not utilize a cluster of motors. X Complete
motor selection.
2.22.6 The launch vehicle will not utilize friction fitting for motors. X The vehicle shall not utilize friction fitting for motors. Complete
The launch vehicle shall not exceed Mach 1 at any point during flight as
2.22.7 The launch vehicle will not exceed Mach 1 at any point during flight. X X determined by OpenRocket and RockSim analysis, and demonstrated by In Progress
analyzing the recorded flight data.
Vehicle ballast will not exceed 10% of the total unballasted weight of The vehicle ballast will not exceed 10% of the total unballasted weight of the
2.22.8 X In Progress
the rocket as it would sit on the pad. rocket as it would sit on the pad.
Transmissions from onboard transmitters will not exceed 250 mW of Transmissions from onboard transmitters shall not exceed 250 mW of power as
2.22.9 X X In Progress
power (per transmitter). determined by the specifications of on-board transmitters and relevant testing.
Transmitters will not create excessive interference. Teams will utilize Transmitters shall not create excessive interference and shall be utilize unique
2.22.10 unique frequencies, handshake/passcode systems, or other means X X frequencies or other means to limit interference and shall be tested prior to In Progress
to mitigate interference caused to or received from other teams. launch week.
Excessive and/or dense metal will not be utilized in the construction Excessive and/or dense metal shall not be utlized in the construction of the
of the vehicle. Use of lightweight metal will be permitted but limited vehicle unless approved by the NASA Student Launch team and team launch
2.22.11 X In Progress
to the amount necessary to ensure structural integrity of the manager Dave Brunsting limited to the amount necessary to ensure structural
airframe under the expected operating stresses. integrity.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

206
 Table 86: NASA Recovery Requirements

University of Notre Dame

Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
The launch vehicle will stage the deployment of its recovery devices,
where a drogue parachute is deployed at apogee, and a main The launch vehicle will contain two separate parachute bays, one for the drogue
parachute is deployed at a lower altitude. Tumble or streamer parachute and one for the main. Each of the altimeters will be programmed to
3.1 X In Progress
recovery from apogee to main parachute deployment is also eject the drogue parachute at or shortly after rocket apogee, and the main
permissible, provided that kinetic energy during drogue stage parachute at a lower altitude.
descent is reasonable, as deemed by the RSO.
All of the recovery altimeters will be programmed to eject the main parachute at
3.1.1 The main parachute shall be deployed no lower than 500 feet. X X an altitude of 500 ft or greater, verified with simulated flight tests and vehicle In Progress
demonstration flights.
All of the recovery altimeters will be programmed to eject the drogue parachute
3.1.2 The apogee event may contain a delay of no more than 2 seconds. X In Progress
at apogee or between 0 and 2 s after apogee.
Motor ejection is not a permissible form of primary or secondary
3.1.3 X All recovery ejection charges will be controlled by commercial altimeters. In Progress
deployment.
Each team must perform a successful ground ejection test for both Before any rocket launch by the team, a ground separation test will be
3.2 the drogue and main parachutes. This must be done prior to the X performed on the rocket using an ejection charge of the same type and size to be In Progress
initial subscale and full-scale launches. used for the launch.
The main parachute will be appropriately sized such that the largest section falls
with a kinetic energy under 75 ft-lbf under main parachute. The expected
Each independent section of the launch vehicle will have a descent velocity has been simulated using OpenRocket and a custom Matlab
3.3 X X In Progress
maximum kinetic energy of 75 ft-lbf at landing. simulator. Descent velocity data will also be taken during test launches to
confirm simulation accuracy and ensure compliance with descent kinetic
energy requirements.
The recovery subsystem will contain redundant, commercially The recovery ejection charges will be controlled by two Featherweight Raven3
3.4 X X In Progress
available altimeters. altimeters and one PerfectFlite Stratologger SL100 altimeter.
Each altimeter will have a dedicated power supply, and all recovery
3.5 X In Progress
electronics will be powered by commercially available batteries.
Each altimeter will be armed by a dedicated mechanical arming
3.6 switch that is accessible from the exterior of the rocket airframe X In Progress
when the rocket is in the launch configuration on the launch pad.
Each arming switch will be capable of being locked in the ON
3.7 X X In Progress
position for launch (i.e. cannot be disarmed due to flight forces).
In simulated launch environment, the full function of the recovery electronics
The recovery subsystem electrical circuits will be completely
3.8 X X will be tested without the payload present to ensure independence from the In Progress
independent of any payload electrical circuits.
payload.
The same number and configuration of shear pins will be used to secure the
Removable shear pins will be used for both the main parachute
3.9 X parachute compartments during ground separation tests and full launches. See Incomplete
compartment and the drogue parachute compartment.
Section 3.8.2 for details.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

The drift distance of the rocket after apogee was simulated in both OpenRocket
The recovery area will be limited to a 2,500 ft radius from the launch and a custom Matlab simulator at a variety of wind speeds up to 20 mph. The
3.10 X X X In Progress
pads. drift distance of the rocket after apogee during the test launch will be recorded
to ensure accuracy of the simulations and compliance with competition rules.
The descent time after apogee was simulated using OpenRocket and a custom
Matlab simulator. The descent time after apogee will also be measured during
3.11 Descent time will be limited to 90 seconds (apogee to touch down). X X X In Progress
test launch to ensure accuracy of simulations and compliance with competition
rules.
An electronic tracking device will be installed in the launch vehicle
The launch vehicle will contain an active GPS transmitter during test launch,
3.12 and will transmit the position of the tethered vehicle or any X X Incomplete
which will be used to track the location of the tethered vehicle after launch.
independent section to a ground receiver.
Any rocket section or payload component, which lands untethered
All sections of the rocket will be tethered together, with a single dedicated GPS
3.12.1 to the launch vehicle, will contain an active electronic tracking X Incomplete
transmitter in one of the sections.
device.
The electronic tracking device(s) will be fully functional during the The GPS transmitter will be tested for functionality before the official flight on
3.12.2 X X Incomplete
official flight on launch day. launch day.
207

The recovery subsystem electronics will not be adversely affected by The rocket will be flown with all electronics active during a test launch before
3.13 any other on-board electronic devices during flight (from launch X X competition. Altimeter data will be inspected afterwords for any evidence of Incomplete
until landing). adverse effects.
 University of Notre Dame
Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
The recovery subsystem altimeters will be physically located in a
separate compartment within the vehicle from any other radio The recovery electronics will be mounted in a recovery bay separate from the
3.13.1 X In Progress
frequency transmitting device and/or magnetic wave producing payload and any RF or EM transmitters or receivers.
device.
The recovery subsystem electronics will be shielded from all
A conductive Faraday cage will encase the recovery altimeters to prevent
3.13.2 onboard transmitting devices to avoid inadvertent excitation of the X In Progress
interference by any outside transmitters.
recovery subsystem electronics.
The recovery subsystem electronics will be shielded from all
A conductive Faraday cage will encase the recovery altimeters to prevent
3.13.3 onboard devices which may generate magnetic waves to avoid X In Progress
interference by any internal magnetic wave producing devices.
inadvertent excitation of the recovery subsystem.
The recovery system electronics will be shielded from any other
A conductive Faraday cage will encase the recovery altimeters to prevent
3.13.4 onboard devices which may adversely affect the proper operation of X In Progress
interference by any internal transmitters and other electronics.
the recovery system electronics.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

208
 Table 87: NASA Payload Requirements

University of Notre Dame

Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
All payload designs must be approved by NASA. NASA reserves the
authority to require a team to modify or change a payload, as The team acknowledges that designs must be approved by NASA and that NASA
4 X Complete
deemed necessary by the Review Panel, even after a proposal has may request design changes.
been awarded.
University teams will design a system capable of being launched in a
high power rocket, landing safely, and recovering simulated lunar ice
from one of several locations on the surface of the launch field. The The team shall be competing in the university division and shall design a
methods utilized will be at the teams’ discretion and will be payload which meets the listed requirement. The team shall have discretion to
permitted so long as the designs are deemed safe, obey FAA and legal design the payload but shall work with team mentors to verify the design is safe,
4.2 X In Progress
requirements, and adhere to the intent of the challenge. An meets FAA requirements, and adheres to the requirements of the challenge. An
additional experiment is allowed, and may be flown, but will not additional experiment will be flown (ABS), and is thoroughly documented in
contribute to scoring. If the team chooses to fly an additional Section 3.7.6.
experiment, they will provide the appropriate documentation in all
design reports so the experiment may be reviewed for flight safety.
The launch vehicle will be launched from the NASA-designated The launch vehicle will be launched from the NASA designated launch area
4.3.1 launch area using the provided Launch pad. All hardware utilized at X using the provided launch pad. All hardware utilized at the recovery site shall be In Progress
the recovery site must launch on or within the launch vehicle. launched on or within the vehicle.
Five recovery areas will be located on the surface of the launch field.
Teams may recover a sample from any of the recovery areas. Each The team shall design the payload to be capable of travelling to one of the
4.3.2 recovery site will be at least 3 ft in diameter and contain sample X recovery areas and recover a sample extending at least 2 inches below the In Progress
material extending from ground level to at least 2 in. below the surface.
surface.
The payload will be designed to be capable of recovering an ice sample with a
4.3.3 The recovered ice sample will be a minimum of 10 mL. X In Progress
minimum volume of 10 mL.
Once the sample is recovered, it must be stored and transported at The payload will be designed to be capable of transporting the recovered sample
4.3.4 X In Progress
least 10 linear ft from the recovery area. at least 10 linear ft from the recovery area.
The team shall abide by all FAA and NAR rules and regulations. The team shall
4.3.5 Teams must abide by all FAA and NAR rules and regulations. X conduct a review with the team launch manager prior to the launch day to verify In Progress
all regulations are met.
Black powder and/or similar energetics are only permitted for
The payload deployment shall utilize an in-flight black powder nose cone
4.3.6 deployment of in-flight recovery systems. Any ground deployments X In Progress
ejection system. See Section 5.3.2 for details.
must utilize mechanical systems.
Any part of the payload or vehicle that is designed to be deployed, The payload shall be designed to be fully retained until it is deployed as
4.3.7 whether on the ground or in the air, must be fully retained until it is X X designed. This shall be verified in tests prior to launches and demonstrated In Progress
deployed as designed. during the demonstration flights.
The mechanical system was designed to prohibit premature deployment and
A mechanical retention system will be designed to prohibit has been analyzed using methods such as FEA to determine forces on the
4.3.7.1 X Complete
premature deployment. system to avoid premature deployment. See Section 5 for details on the

2019-20 Critical Design Review

retention system design and analysis.
The retention system shall be subjected to shake tests to ensure the system is
The retention system will be robust enough to successfully endure
4.3.7.2 X X capable of enduring typical and atypical flight forces while still being reusable In Progress
flight forces experienced during both typical and atypical flights.
per Req. 2.4.
The retention system is designed to be fail-safe to ensure that failure of any
system components does not result in the payload being damaged or released
4.3.7.3 The designed system will be fail-safe. X X In Progress
prematurely. The system shall be designed with redundancy and thoroughly
tested to avoid failures.
The team will not exclusively use shear pins for retention. See Section 5.3.1 for
4.3.7.4 Exclusive use of shear pins will not meet Req. 4.3.7. X Complete
retention design details.
Any experiment element that is jettisoned during the recovery phase
4.4.1 will receive real-time RSO permission prior to initiating the jettison X The payload will be completely retained during flight and recovery. Complete
event.
UAV payloads, if designed to be deployed during descent, will be
4.4.2 tethered to the vehicle with a remotely controlled release X X The payload will be completely retained during flight and recovery. Complete
mechanism until the RSO has given permission to release the UAV.
209

Teams flying UAVs will abide by all applicable FAA regulations, The team shall abide by all FAA regulations and shall carefully review the
4.4.3 X In Progress
including the FAA’s Special Rule for Model Aircraft. regulations during each step of the development process.
 University of Notre Dame
Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
Any UAV weighing more than .55 lbs. will be registered with the FAA The team UAV weighing more than 0.55 lbs will be registered with the FAA and
4.4.4 X In Progress
and the registration number marked on the vehicle. the registration number marked on the vehicle.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

210
 Table 88: NASA Safety Requirements

University of Notre Dame

Requirement Verification Method
Verification Plan Status
ID Description A I D T
Each team will use a launch and safety checklist. The final checklists The team shall write and maintain a launch and safety checklist which shall be
5.1 will be included in the FRR report and used during the LRR and any X included in the FRR and LRR reports. The Safety and Systems team shall lead In Progress
launch day operations. development and enforcement of these safety procedures.
The team has elected Brooke Mumma to serve as the safety officer who will lead
Each team must identify a student safety officer who will be
5.2 X the Safety and Systems team. As such she shall be responsible for all safety Complete
responsible for all items in Req. 5.3.
matters in accordance with Req. 5.3.
The role and responsibilities of the safety officer will include, but are
5.3 X The safety officer shall manage the responsibilities listed. In Progress
not limited to those listed in Req. 5.3.1-5.3.4.
The safety officer shall monitor team activities with an emphasis on
safety during design of vehicle and payload, construction of vehicle The safety officer shall monitor all listed team activities during the full
5.3.1.1- and payload components, assembly of vehicle and payload, ground development cycle of the team throughout the year. The safety officer shall
X In Progress
5.3.1.9 testing of vehicle and payload, full-scale launch test(s), subscale focus on the safety of the team and shall have the discretion to maintain
launch test(s), launch day, recovery activities, and STEM enforcement methods for handling safety violations.
engagement activities.
The Safety and Systems team shall manage the design teams in writing
The safety officer shall implement procedures developed by the procedures for construction, assembly, launch, and recovery activities and shall
5.3.2 X In Progress
team for construction, assembly, launch, and recovery activities. ensure the procedures meet safety requirements following a standardized
format set by the team.
The safety officer shall manage and maintain current revisions of the The Safety and Systems team shall maintain the team’s hazard analyses, failure
5.3.3 team’s hazard analyses, failure modes analyses, procedures, and X mode analyses, procedures, and MSDS inventory data. The team shall conduct In Progress
MSDS/chemical inventory data. frequent revision meetings.
The safety officer assist in the writing and development of the team’s The Safety and Systems team shall lead writing and development of the analyses
5.3.4 X In Progress
hazard analyses, failure modes analyses, and procedures. and procedures listed.
During test flights, teams will abide by the rules and guidance of the
local rocketry club’s RSO. The allowance of certain vehicle
configurations and/or payloads at the NASA Student Launch does The Safety and Systems lead, team captains, and team launch manager shall
5.4 not give explicit or implicit authority for teams to fly those vehicle X communicate with the local RSO to ensure the vehicle meets all local In Progress
configurations and/or payloads at other club launches. Teams configuration requirements and address any safety concerns of the local RSO.
should communicate their intentions to the local club’s President or
Prefect and RSO before attending any NAR or TRA launch.
The team shall abide by all FAA rules and regulations and will conduct frequent
5.5 Teams will abide by all rules set forth by the FAA. X In Progress
reviews to ensure continued compliance.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

211
 University of Notre Dame
6.2.2 Team Derived Requirements

Table 89: Derived Launch Vehicle Requirements

Requirement Verification Method
NASA Verification Plan Status
ID Description Justification A I D T
Parent ID
The vehicle will have two in-flight
separation points to allow for a The design of the rocket will have three separation
Drogue parachute necessary to
V.1 X drogue and main parachute X points, two covered by bulkhead for recovery and a third In Progress
slow vehicle and decrease drift
deployment and an additional for ABS integration.
access point for ABS integration.
The weight distribution
throughout the vehicle will be An updated weight budget for the launch vehicle will be
V.2 X Decrease parachute size X In Progress
kept the closest possible to kept updated at all times.
constant.
The vehicle must have a fully
designed and integrated ballast
In the case that payloads are
area at the rocket’s Cg to diminish
under weight budget, ballasting The ballast area will be designed to fit in the area closest
V.3 2.22.8 ballast’s effect in the vehicle’s X In Progress
will be necessary to meet target to the rocket’s Cg.
stability. The ballast area must
apogee
hold up to 10% of total vehicle
weight.
Simulation software will be used to verify vehicle designs
The vehicle is designed to reach a Target apogee must be set by the reach a 4,100 ft. apogee in a simulated environment, and
V.4 2.1, 2.2 X X In Progress
4,444 ft altitude. team full scale test flights shall be used to verify the accuracy of
the simulation and completion of the requirement.
The payload bay shall be a fiber The team designed the rocket to provide the required
Payload bay must be radio
V.5 X glass body tube with an 8 in. OD X dimensions for the payload system. See Section 3.3.2 for In Progress
transparent for signals to payload
and 20 in length. design details.
ABS must be secured to the rest of
Avoid force unbalance due to ABS will be designed for ideal integration into the aft part
V.6 X the vehicle and fill the full aft X In Progress
movement of payload of the rocket. See Section X for details on ABS design.
diameter of the rocket.
The vehicle shall not exceed a The total length of the full scale rocket will be measured
V.7 X Vehicle must be easily transported X Incomplete
maximum length of 12 ft. when construction material is delivered.
The recovery body tube will not The recovery body tube was designed under that length,
V.7.1 X exceed a maximum length of 48 Length budget to fulfull V.7 X shown in Section 3.2. Measurements will be made during In Progress
in. fabrication to confirm that this requirement is met.
ABS was designed within this length restriction. See
ABS will not exceed 11.5 inches in Section 3.7.6 for design details. Measurements will be

2019-20 Critical Design Review

V.7.2 X X In Progress
length to fulfill V.7. made during fabrication to confirm that this requirement
is met.
The vehicle shall not exceed a Vehicle must be able to achieve The launch vehicle will be weighted with all of the
V.8 2.2 X Incomplete
maximum weight of 70 lbs. target apogee systems before launch.
ABS was designed to weigh less than 70 oz. Design details
ABS will not exceed 70 oz in can be found in Section 3.7.3.3. Measurements will be
V.8.1 X Weight budget to fulfill V.8 X In Progress
weight. made during fabrication to confirm that this requirement
is met.
The vehicle must house a camera
A housing area will be integrated and a securing
that looks downward with an Allows view of ABS tab extension
V.9 X X mechanism will be designed to safely hold the camera in In Progress
angle of visibility that includes and retraction
place. See Section 9 for design details.
ABS.
Flight simulation applications will be used to design for a
The stability margin of the vehicle
Avoid any possibility of vehicle 2-3 caliber stability margin and before test flights the
V.10 2.14 with the motor must be between 2 X X In Progress
tilting into the wind actual Cg will be measured to calculate the stability
and 3 calibers.
margin.
212

The motor selection must tend The motor selection will be based on flight simulations
V.11 4.2 towards overshooting rather than Allow use of ABS X X and test flights will determine predicted vs actual In Progress
undershooting the target apogee. apogee. See Appendix B.3 for simulation details.
 University of Notre Dame
Requirement Verification Method
NASA Verification Plan Status
ID Description Justification A I D T
Parent ID
Epoxied bulkheads must be able
Load bearing bulkheads must not Solid testing will be designed to test max force that an
V.12 X to hold the load of drogue and X In Progress
break under max load epoxied bulkhead can withstand.
main parachute deployments.
Removable bulkhead attached to Failure of the bulkhead or the Analysis of the stresses experienced by the bulkhead and
ABS must be able to withstand the securing screws would prevent screws during deployment will help determine material
V.13 X X In Progress
load of drogue and main the ability to execute a successful and dimensional requirements to ensure these
parachute deployments. landing components will not fail.
The integration design of ABS will focus on the location
The ABS drag tabs must extend at
The induced drag force shall not of the tabs in relation to the CP, shown in Section 3.2.
V.14 X a location no greater than 1 in. X In Progress
result in destabilizing moments Measurements will be made during fabrication to
from the CP.
confirm that this requirement is met.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

213
 Table 90: Derived Recovery Requirements

University of Notre Dame

Requirement Verification Method
NASA Verification Plan Status
ID Description Justification A I D T
Parent ID
Recovery ejection charges shall be
Two switches of different types will be placed in series
capable of being “safed," such To ensure that the black powder
with the powering battery such that both switches need
R.1 3.6, 3.7 that at least 2 independent ejection charges do not ignite X In Progress
to be closed before the altimeter fully arms. See Section
actions are necessary before the early and injure personnel
3.8.2 for switch details.
altimeter is fully armed.
A Nomex deployment bag will be used to contain the
The parachutes, shroud lines, and
Ejection charges can burn the folded main and drogue parachutes to protect them from
shock cordage shall be protected
R.2 X parachute, reducing its ability to X X the ejection charges. Ground separation tests will be Incomplete
from potential damage due to the
successfully slow down the rocket performed to ensure adequate parachute protection
ejection charges.
before launch.
The recovery altimeters will be contained in the CRAM,
The altimeter bay shall be
A removable altimeter bay allows which will be easily removed from the rocket via a
removable such that rocket
for quicker assembly and twist-to-lock mechanism. Altimeter retrieval
R.3 X apogee/flight data can be quickly X In Progress
retrieval, allowing for quicker demonstration shall be performed such that the
retrieved after successful recovery
launch turnarounds. altimeters are removed from the landed, separated
with minimal tools.
rocket in 5 minutes or less.
System shall be redundant such
that any 2 component failures Redundant components increase
(such as altimeter malfunction, the reliability of the recovery Three independent altimeters are used to control
R.4 3.4 battery disconnect, or defective system and decrease the X parachute deployment, with each altimeter fully capable In Progress
E-match) does not compromise likelihood of parachute of deploying both parachutes at the proper times.
the ability to safely recover the deployment failure
vehicle and complete the mission.
The altimeter compartment shall Ground separation testing will reveal any gas escape out
be sealed off from the parachute Ejection charges can damage the altimeter ports, and altimeter data will be analyzed
R.5 X compartment to prevent the exposed altimeters and hinder X X after test flight for sudden dips in altitude just after Incomplete
ejection charges from damaging main parachute deployment apogee, which is indicative of the ejection charge gasses
the electronics. entering the altimeter bay.
The recovery system shall be
A method of external safety allows
capable of being “safed" after In a simulated launch environment, an attempt will be
for safe retrieval of the rocket in
R.6 X landing, in the event that an X X made to initiate the ejection charge with one of the stops Incomplete
the case of a live deployment
ejection charge has failed to in place.
charge.
deploy.
On-vehicle telemetry shall weigh Weight budget ensures apogee is
R.7 X Weight will be measured In Progress
less than 3 lbs reached
Adequate space must be available
On-vehicle telemetry shall be CAD Model will be used to verify the size of the final
R.8 for other subsystems, specifically X In Progress
packaged in nose cone system
for the LSRS

2019-20 Critical Design Review

Portable power sources shall keep
From calculations of max. current draw from the system,
on-vehicle telemetry and relay Telemetry goals cannot be met
R.9 X selected batteries will yield operational times orders of In Progress
station operational for well over under power shortage
magnitude beyond mission time
the mission time
Sample data will be stored on the SD card before flight,
On-vehicle telemetry shall store Verifies that data was not and it will be verified that it can be read from a laptop;
R.10 X In Progress
all transmitted data locally corrupted in the wireless link during test launches, on-vehicle stored data will be read
and inspected after launch
On-vehicle telemetry shall Ensures data is able to be
transmit reliably over an transmitted to the relay station
R.11 X Transmitter Range Test In Progress
approximate range of 5500 ft throughout entirity of the flight of
through empty atmosphere the vehicle
Telemetry relay station shall
Ensures data can be transmitted
transmit reliably over an
R.12 from the relay station to the X X Transmitter Range Test In Progress
approximate range of 2500 ft at
ground station
ground level
214
 University of Notre Dame
Requirement Verification Method
NASA Verification Plan Status
ID Description Justification A I D T
Parent ID
Ground station GUI shall report
GPS data (latitude, longitude,
altitude), accelerometer data
GUI should report a live view of Data received by the ground station will be accurately
R.13 (three axis acceleration, angular X In Progress
the current status of the vehicle displayed by the GUI by inspection
velocity, vehicle orientation), and
altimeter data (vehicle altitude) as
received

2019-20 Critical Design Review

215
 Table 91: Derived Payload Requirements

University of Notre Dame

Requirement Verification Method
NASA Verification Plan Status
ID Description Justification A I D T
Parent ID
Constraining the Rover to a 6 in.
The Rover must not have an maximum width gives the other All Rover body designs will be constrained to a width of 6
P.1 X In Progress
overall width larger than 6 in. subsystems a dimension to design in.
around
The terrain where the launch will
The Rover must be able to be conducted is not flat and easy
The translation mechanism will be tested traversing
P.2 overcome small obstacles such as to navigate, so the Rover should X X In Progress
multiple types of obstacles
rocks, corn stalks, and crop rows. be able to overcome any obstacles
it may encounter.
The state of the terrain is variable
The Rover must be able to traverse The rover will be tested traversing through various
and the rover should be designed
P.3 through mud, puddles, corn X X terrains that may be present at the launch including Incomplete
to overcome any terrain it may
stalks, and corn fields. mud, puddles, and high cut corn
experience.
Making the Rover water resistant
The Rover must hold and protect
will enable it to travel through All containers that will house electronics will be water
P.4 the electronics in a water proof X X X In Progress
puddles rather than going around tested to ensure there are no leaks.
container.
them and wasting time.
Constraining the Rover to a
The Rover must not weigh more An up to date weight budget of all components will be
P.5 maximum weight will prevent the X In Progress
than 40 oz. maintained to keep track of the weight of the systems.
payload from going over weight
A 20 min operating time will
Operating time calculations will be conducted at various
The Rover must have a minimum provide adequate time for the
P.6 X X design milestones to verify the selected components will In Progress
operating time of 20 min. Rover to traverse to the closest
enable the Rover to operate for a minimum of 20 min.
FEA
A manual override enables the
The Rover must have a manual operator to take control of the All control software will be required to have a manual
P.7 X X X In Progress
override switch. Rover should an error occur in the override built into the code.
control code.
The Rover will remain dormant A low power mode will conserve Various testing will be conducted with the Rover in the
P.8 until receiving the initiation signal the battery life of the Rover prior X X low power mode to ensure that no external force or signal In Progress
from the UAV. to deploying. will bring the Rover out of the dormant state.
This constraint enables the UAV to
The UAV must be no larger than 4 The UAV design was restrained to 4 in x 4 in. See Section
P.9 fit inside the payload bay without X Complete
in x 4 in. 5.4.1 for UAV design details.
the need for moving arms.
All UAV frame designs will be required to have no moving
The UAV frame must protect the Damage to the battery can result
P.10 X X parts and all components will need to be statically In Progress
battery. in catastrophic failure
secured. See Section 5.4.1 for design details.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

Constraining the UAV to a
An up to date weight budget of all components will be
P.11 The UAV must weigh under 2.4 oz. maximum weight will prevent the X In Progress
maintained to keep track of the weight of the systems.
payload from going over weight.
A 10 minute flight time will Flight time calculations will be conducted at various
The UAV must have a minimum provide adequate time for the design milestones to verify the selected components and
P.12 X X In Progress
flight time of 10 min. UAV to search the area around the the selected frame design will enable the UAV to fly for a
Rover. minimum of 10 min.
Using a commercially available
The UAV must use a commercial flight controller expedites the A commercial flight controller for the UAV has been
P.13 X Complete
flight controller. flight software development selected.
process
A manual override enables the
The UAV must have a manual operator to take control of the All flight software will be required to have a manual
P.14 X X X X In Progress
override switch. UAV should an error occur in the override built into the code.
flight code
Having a sample size target over
216

The Sample Retrieval system must The system has been designed to collect 15 mL of
the required sample size will
P.15 4.3.3 recover a minimum sample size of X X sample. The system will be extensively tested to ensure it In Progress
ensure the retrieval of a 10 mL
15 mL consistently retrieves a sample no smaller than 15 mL.
sample
 University of Notre Dame
Requirement Verification Method
NASA Verification Plan Status
ID Description Justification A I D T
Parent ID
A self orienting sample retrieval
The Sample Retrieval system must The retrieval system will be extensively tested to verify it
system will allow the rover to be in
P.16 be able to correctly orient itself for X X can correctly orient itself to perform the retrieval Incomplete
any position while the retrieval
retrieval operations. operations consistently and reliably.
system is operating
The sample container will be water tested to ensure no
The Sample Retrieval system must Securing the sample once it is
contaminants can leak into the container and the
retain and protect the recovered collected will ensure successful
P.17 4.3.4 X X X container will be tested through sample retrieval Incomplete
sample from spillage and deliver of the sample from the
simulations to ensure no amount of sample can spill out
contamination. CFEA.
of the container during the translation of the Rover.
The sample retrieval team will communicate regularly
The Sample Retrieval system must
Reduces system complexity and with the Rover electronic team to ensure that the
P.18 interface with the Rover X X In Progress
reduces the risk of failure retrieval system can integrate into the electronic system
electronics.
of the Rover.
The Sample Retrieval system must The team is utilizing Fusion 360 and cloud based models
Reduces system complexity and
P.19 be easily integrated with the Rover X X to ensure all assemblies use up to date models and all In Progress
reduces the risk of failure
frame. systems integrate together.
All designs of the deployment system will include a
Will ensure system success
The Deployment system must minimum of two redundant locking mechanisms for
P.20 4.3.7.3 despite a component failure X X X In Progress
have multiple fail-safes. restricting motion of components in the bulkhead of the
within the system
vehicle. See Section 5.3 for deployment design details.
The Deployment system must be The orientation system will be extensively tested with the
able to correctly orient the Rover bulkhead section of the vehicle to ensure that it
The orientation of the Rover is
P.21 and UAV regardless of the landing X X consistently and reliably orients the Rover and UAV for In Progress
paramount to mission success
position of the upper section of multiple orientations and landings of the bulkhead
the vehicle. section of the vehicle.
The deployment system must All designs of the deployment system will be required to
Flight stability is dependent on all
restrict motion of the Rover and restrict motion of the Rover and UAV in the X, Y, and Z
P.22 4.3.7.1 components in the payload bay X X In Progress
UAV in all directions until the directions. All motion restricting designs will be
remaining locked in place
deployment sequence is initiated. extensively tested to verify proper functionality.
The target detection software will be tested to
The target detection system must consistently locate the closest CFEA during multiple
Minimize travel time and distance
P.23 correctly identify the closest X X simulations in which fluorescent material will be placed In Progress
for the Rover.
CFEA. on multiple types of terrain. See Section 5.4.2 for system
details.
The target detection system must The target detection software will be tested to correctly
Reduced risk of the Rover driving
P.24 identify the corner of the FEA that X X and reliably identify the corner of the FEA that is furthest In Progress
over the UAV
is furthest from the Rover. from the Rover.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

217
 Table 92: Derived Systems and Safety Requirements

University of Notre Dame

Requirement Verification Method
NASA Verification Plan Status
ID Description Justification A I D T
Parent ID
To ensure the safety of team
Attendance will be taken at pre-launch briefings and any
Prior to any launch, team members shall be briefed and personnel, members must
members not in attendance will not be eligible to attend
S.1 5.3.1.7 tested about safety and procedures in accordance with be informed of the hazards X In Progress
the launch. Members failing to pass the safety quiz will
NAR/TAR and NDRT regulations. at launch and proper
not be eligible to attend the launch.
procedures
Prior to construction of subsection components and the Provides clarity which
full assembly, schematics and procedures shall be makes the construction Schematics will be created based on finalized 3D models
S.2 5.3.1.2 X In Progress
published to ensure correct and safe manufacturing and process safer and more and available in the workshop prior to any construction.
assembly techniques. efficient.
The team shall maintain updated records of the team’s
hazard analyses, failure modes analyses, procedures, and Allows the team to make Documentation will be available, reviewed, and updated
S.3 5.3.3 MSDS/chemical inventory data and will use this safer and improved X on a regular basis. The most current version will be In Progress
information to drive design, construction, and testing decisions available on the team shared drive.
decisions.
Requiring certifications for
Each NDRT member participating in construction shall Members will receive a card that indicates which tools
workshop tools ensures that
be certified on the machines and tools used in they are certified on. Each team member must present
S.4 5.3.1.2 members learn the proper X In Progress
accordance to the Notre Dame Student Fabrication Lab this card to a team officer before working on any
technique and are informed
standards. construction.
of workshop hazards.
Allows the team to identify The Safety and Systems Team will work with each design
and correct errors prior to team to develop testing plans and rigs prior to
Each subsection of the vehicle and payload shall be
S.5 5.3.1.4 full-scale testing, increasing X conducting tests. The physical copy of the testing plan In Progress
tested individually before the full scale test.
probability of a successful will be used for running the test, and the test results will
mission. be filed digitally.
Allows for standardization
of documentation and
The team will develop detailed test procedures at the A generic test procedure format will be available to the
streamlined
S.6 5.3.1.4 component and full-scale level to ensure that the designs X technical leads to modify. Each subsystem will present In Progress
communication; ensures
are robust and reliable. their testing results prior to full scale assembly.
that members go into
testing fully prepared.

2019-20 Critical Design Review

218
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6.3 Project Budget

The Notre Dame Rocketry Team has budgeted $20,753 for this year’s NASA Student Launch.
Itemized budgets with allocations outlined in Table 94 are kept up to date by each lead. The
captain monitors the overall budget. Each purchase is carefully researched to ensure the
selection of the most reliable and affordable vendor. Per General Requirement 1.2, updates
and modifications to the budget will continue until the submission of the final budget
summary in PLAR.

6.3.1 Project Sponsorship

The Notre Dame Rocketry Team’s participation in the NASA Student Launch would not be
possible without the support of our generous sponsors. Table 93 catalogs the contributors to
Notre Dame’s project.

Table 93: NDRT 2019-2020 Sponsorship

Funding Source Amount

Carryover (2018/19) $2,722
Team Merchandise $160
ND Day Fundraising $671
The Boeing Company $10,000
Pratt & Whitney $5,000
ND EE Department $1,000
Jim Lampariello (Blue Origin Systems Engineer) $1,000
GE Aviation $200
TOTAL FUNDING $20,753

As shown in Table 93, corporate sponsorship constitutes the primary revenue source for the
team. This year’s corporate sponsors include The Boeing Company, Pratt & Whitney, NDRT’s
founder Jim Lampariello, and GE Aviation. The Notre Dame Rocketry Team is pursuing funding
from AIS Healthcare for the remainder of the year.

6.3.2 Project Revenue Allocation

NDRT has allocated approximately 40% of the budget to Vehicle Design, which
encompasses the Air Braking System and the Recovery Subsystem. At $2,000, the Lunar
Sample Retrieval System was allocated approximately 10% of the budget. Funding for travel to
the competition comprises approximately 43% of the budget. Because purchases cannot be
made until the Notre Dame Rocketry Team receives approval from both the Notre Dame
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department and the Notre Dame Student Affairs

219
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Office, Table 94 lists the projected Competition Travel purchases. Purchases for Competition
Travel include team lodging, mentor lodging, gasoline, vehicle rental, and meals for the team.
The remaining 7% of the $20,753 was apportioned to Systems & Safety, STEM Engagement,
and miscellaneous purchases such as networking dinners with donors and car repairs for test
launch travels. Table 94 outlines NDRT’s current revenue allocation.

Table 94: NDRT 2019-2020 Project Allocation

Allocation Amount Spent Percent Spent

Vehicle Design $5,000 $2,731.06 54.62%
Air Braking System $1,300 $555.92 42.76%
Recovery Subsystem $2,000 $1,183.95 59.20%
LSRS $2,000 $1,800.06 90.00%
Systems & Safety $650 $113.22 17.42%
STEM Engagement $300 $18.43 6.14%
Competition Travel $9,000 $8,999.78 100%
Miscellaneous Expenses $500 $458.96 91.79%
TOTAL ALLOCATION $20,750 $15,861.38 76.44%

6.3.3 Line Item Budgets

Table 95 details NDRT’s project revenue allocation. Listed are the items that the team has
purchased thus far. Table 95 presents the purchased materials for the Recovery Subsystem,
Systems & Safety, Vehicle Design, LSRS, ABS, and STEM Engagement. Also included in the table
are Miscellaneous Expenses and Competition Travel expenses. Items highlighted in light blue
in the Total Cost column are projected expenses for purchase in mid-January.

Table 95: Itemized Budget. Prices highlighted in light blue indicate projected purchases for mid-January.
Recovery Subsystem Vendor Description Qty Price per Unit Total Cost
Components
3.7 V 170 mAh LiPo Wing Deli Rechargeable 5 $7.48 $37.40
Storefront Battery Pack
UP-S6 1 s LiPo Battery Crazepony- LiPo Battery 1 $24.21 $24.21
Charger Power Charger
AC to DC Power Adapter Crazepony- Power Cord for 1 $11.56 $11.56
12 V Power Charger
Through Mount Slotted Aerocon Systems Switch for 3 $9.01 $27.03
Switch Recovery
Activation
Magnetic Switch Featherweight Switch for 3 $28.34 $85.02
Altimeters Recovery
Activation
JST PH 2.0 MM LATTECH Connectors for 1 $7.99 $7.99
Connectors, 30 sets Batteries

220
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

CAM-M8C-0-10 GPS Digi-Key RF Receiver, 1 $25.00 $25.00

GLONASS,
GNSS, GPS 1.575
GHz-167 dBm
KX222-1054 Digi-Key Accelerometer 1 $9.41 $9.41
Accelerometer
BNO055 Accelerometer Digi-Key Accelerometer 1 $11.16 $11.16
MPL3115A2 Altimeter Digi-Key Altimeter 1 $5.80 $5.80
3.7 V 2500 mAh Lithium Adafruit Lithium Ion 2 $14.95 $29.90
Ion Polymer Battery Polymer Battery
32-bit PIC32 Microchip Microcontroller 3 $4.00 $12.00
Microcontroller Technology
ADF7030-1 RF Mouser Transceiver 3 $5.10 $15.30
Transceiver Electronics
HMC452ST89 1 W Power Analog Devices Power Amplifier 2 $11.71 $23.42
Amplifier
ANT-433-MHW-SMA-S Digi-Key Antenna 1 $15.04 $15.04
433 MHz Antenna
128 GB Micro SD Card - SanDisk Memory Card 1 $19.49 $19.49
SDSQUAR-128G-GN6MA
FTDI FT230XS-R USB to Mouser USB Interface 1 $2.04 $2.04
UART Electronics
ADF7030-1 EZ-KIT In House Evaluation board 1 $0.00 $0.00
Evaluation &
Development Kit
ADZS-UCM3029EZLITE In House Motherboard 1 $0.00 $0.00
Motherboard
Oak Board, 1 in. x 8 in. Home Depot CRAM body and 8 $5.76 $46.08
adapter material
1
8 in. Garolite G10 McMaster-Carr CRAM bulkhead 1 $16.26 $16.26
material
1
4 -20 Hex Head Screws, 10 McMaster-Carr Bolts for CRAM 1 $7.12 $7.12
pack
1
4 -20 Hex Nuts, 100 pack McMaster-Carr Nuts for CRAM 1 $3.98 $3.98
3
8 Extreme-Strength Steel McMaster-Carr Eyebolt Coupling 1 $36.45 $36.45
Coupling Nut Nut
3
8 Zinc-Plated Steel McMaster-Carr Recovery 4 $13.93 $55.72
Eyebolt Eyebolts
3
8Stainless Steel FruityChutes Recovery 6 $10.50 $63.00
Quicklink Quicklinks
IFC-120-S FruityChutes Main Parachute 1 $541.97 $541.97
6 in. 13 in. Deployment FruityChutes Protection for 1 $51.60 $51.60
Bag Main Parachute
TOTAL COST $1183.95
Budget $2000.00
Allocation

221
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Margin $816.05

Systems & Safety Vendor Description Qty Price per Unit Total Cost
Components
Vinyl Gloves (200) Walmart PPE 1 $11.98 $11.98
Face Masks (5) Walmart PPE 4 $0.97 $3.88
Lysol Wipes Walmart Cleaning 1 $2.98 $2.98
1
8 Wood Board Home Depot Miscellaneous 1 $11.74 $11.74
Tooling
Drill Bit Set Amazon Tooling 1 $29.99 $29.99
Dremmel Bit Set Amazon Tooling 1 $35.97 $35.97
Micro Cotton Swab Tips Preskboo Epoxy 1 $16.68 $16.68
(400) Applicators
TOTAL COST $113.22
Budget $650.00
Allocation
Margin $536.78

Vehicle Design Vendor Description Qty Price Per Unit Total Cost
Components
RockSim Licenses Apogee General 4 $20.00 $80.00
Components
G80T-7 Motors Apogee Subscale 3 $35.30 $105.90
Components
Motor Retainer Apogee Subscale 1 $10.00 $10.00
Components
Nose Cones 11.25 in. long Apogee Subscale 2 $22.19 $44.38
Components
Payload Bay (3 in. tube) Apogee Subscale 1 $11.17 $11.17
Components
66 mm Tubing Apogee Subscale 1 $13.00 $13.00
Components
Balsa Sheet Apogee Subscale 1 $1.76 $1.76
Components
Couplers Apogee Subscale 5 $16.75 $83.75
Components
Motor Mount (29 mm Apogee Subscale 1 $4.99 $4.99
Tubing) Components
Epoxy Clay Apogee Subscale 1 $14.95 $14.95
Components
Taxes & Shipping Apogee Subscale 1 $86.48 $86.48
Components
1
8 in. Plywood Home Depot Subscale 1 $11.74 $11.74
RocketPoxy Apogee Solid Testing 1 $43.75 $43.75
Components

222
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Fiberglass Bulkhead Apogee Solid Testing 3 $9.80 $29.40

Components
Taxes & Shipping Apogee Solid Testing 1 $17.41 $17.41
Components
G80 Motors Impulse Buys Subscale 2 $30.00 $60.00
Motor Dealer
FIN-2SQFT-125 Public Missiles Full-Scale: G10 3 $67.89 $203.67
Sheet for Fins
CFAF-3.0-PRMx60 (0.054 Public Missiles Full-Scale: 1 $229.95 $229.95
thickness) Carbon Fiber
Motor Mount
CFAF-6.0-PRMx60 (0.054 Public Missiles Full-Scale: 2 $439.95 $879.90
thickness) Carbon Fiber
Tubing
CFCT-6.0x11.75 (0.056 Public Missiles Full-Scale: 2 $94.95 $189.90
thickness) Carbon Fiber
Tubing
CF Airframe Cutting Public Missiles Full-Scale: 3 $6.00 $18.00
Custom Cuts
CF Airframe Slotting Public Missiles Full-Scale: 8 $6.00 $48.00
Custom Slots
8 in. G12 Airframe Madcow Payload Bay 1 $340.00 $388.00
Rocketry Fiberglass
Tubing
G10 Fiberglass CR Apogee Fin Can 2 $19.95 $39.90
Components Centering Rings
Motor Retainer Apogee Full-Scale Motor 1 $56.67 $56.67
Components
Fiberglass Tube Bulkhead Apogee ABS Aft Bulkhead 1 $9.80 $9.80
Components
1515 Large Rail Buttons Apogee Rail Buttons 1 $11.17 $11.17
Components
3
16 in. Fiberglass Sheet McMaster-Carr Bulkhead for 1 $29.80 $29.80
Main Parachute
316 Stainless Steel Washer McMaster-Carr Washer for Main 1 $7.62 $7.62
2" OD Deployment
TOTAL COST $2731.06
Allocation $5000.00
Margin $2268.94

Lunar Sample Retrieval Vendor Description Qty Price Per Unit Total Cost
System Components
98 RPM Econ Gear Motor ServoCity Gear Motor 2 $14.99 $36.97
Raspberry Pi 3 CanaKit Pi 3 with 2.5 A 1 $49.62 $49.62
USB Power
Supply

223
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

16 GB Memory Card SanDisk Ultra 1 $5.79 $5.79

microSDHC
Memory Card
with Adapter
1
4 in. OD Retaining Ring McMaster-Carr Ring 1 $8.13 $15.45
1
4 in. ID PTFE Tube McMaster-Carr Tubing 1 $11.20 $20.12
25 mm Bore Motor Mount ServoCity Motor Mount 2 $5.99 $18.97
4-40 Set Screws McMaster-Carr Set Screws 1 $3.17 $3.17
Plastic Washers McMaster-Carr Washers 1 $3.00 $3.00
3
6-32 in. Socket Head
8 McMaster-Carr Bolts 1 $8.86 $8.86
Bolts
7
6061 16 in. Rod McMaster-Carr Rod 1 $13.19 $13.19
6061 0.625 in. x 3 in. Flat Grainger Bar 1 $2.87 $2.87
Bar Industrial Supply
Glass Beads Fire Mountain Lunar Ice 15 $2.25 $42.52
Gems and Beads,
Inc.
HDPE Sheet McMaster-Carr HDPE 1 $14.25 $14.25
1
4 in. Shaft Collar Ruland Collar 4 $6.36 $25.44
Manufacturing
Co., Inc.
Plastic Gear McMaster-Carr Gear 1 $2.46 $2.46
Plastic Rack McMaster-Carr Rack 1 $3.69 $3.69
High Speed Micro Servo AMain Hobbies Servo 1 $29.99 $29.99
Micro CR Motor Adafruit Motor 1 $7.50 $7.50
Industries
Flight Controller GetFPV F4 Nano 1 $29.99 $29.99
Adafruit Itsy Bitsy 3 V Adafruit Microcontroller 1 $9.95 $9.95
Industries Board
Retention Solenoid Adafruit Medium Push 4 $7.50 $30.00
Industries Pull Solenoid
Transistor for Solenoid SparkFun Transistor 4 $0.95 $3.80
Electronics
Diodes for Solenoid Adafruit Diodes 1 $1.50 $1.50
Industries
5V Regulator for Solenoid Adafruit Regulator 4 $0.75 $3.00
Industries
Tenergy Li-Ion 11.1 V Tenergy Power Rover Battery 2 $41.99 $83.98
2600 mAh
Sabertooth 2x5 RobotShop Motor Driver 1 $57.95 $57.95
Ori32 BLHeli32 GetFPV Electronic Speed 1 $39.99 $39.99
Controller
Caddx Turbo EOS2 Micro GetFPV Camera 1 $15.99 $15.99
Camera

224
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

TBS Crossfire Nano GetFPV Receiver 1 $29.99 $29.99

Receiver
Matek M8Q-5883 GPS GetFPV GPS 1 $32.99 $32.99
TBS Unify Pro32 Video GetFPV Transmitter 1 $29.95 $29.95
Transmitter
Lumenier AXII 5.8 GHz GetFPV UAV Antenna 1 $19.99 $19.99
Antenna
TBS Crossfire TX GetFPV Bluetooth 1 $149.99 $149.99
Bluetooth
Lumenier AXII LR GetFPV Ground Station 1 $19.99 $19.99
Antenna Antenna
Propellers BetaFPV UAV Props 1 $8.99 $8.99
RCX H1304 Motor MyRcMart Motor 4 $9.99 $39.96
RC832 Receiver AKK Receiver 1 $16.99 $16.99
3DR Telemetry Kit ReadytoSky Telemetry 1 $24.99 $24.99
Lumenier 3S2P Battery GetFPV UAV Battery 1 $39.99 $39.99
Bulkhead Bearing McMaster-Carr Bearing 1 $13.24 $13.24
3D Printed Parts Innovation Park Payload Custom 1 $650.00 $650.00
Prints
BNO055 Digi-Key Accelerometer, 1 $11.16 $11.16
Gyroscope,
Magnetometer, 9
Axis
MTK3339 Adafruit GPS Module 1 $29.95 $29.95
Industries
RFM95W-915S2 LoRa Digi-Key Radio Module 1 $13.57 $13.57
Module
32 kHz Crystal Oscillator Digi-Key Crystal Oscillator 1 $1.19 $1.19
3.3 V DC-DC Converter Digi-Key Converter 1 $4.91 $4.91
5 V DC-DC Converter Digi-Key Converter 1 $4.91 $4.91
Logic Converter 3.3 V-5 V Digi-Key Converter 1 $1.05 $1.05
PCB Manufacturing Osh Park PCB 1 $75.00 $75.00
TOTAL COST $1800.06
Allocation $2000.00
Margin $199.94

ABS Components Vendor Description Qty Price Per Unit Total Cost
MPL3115A2 - I2C Adafruit Barometric 1 $21.55 $21.55
Barometric Pressure, Industries pressure sensor
Altitude, Temperature
Sensor
9-DOF Absolute Adafruit Accelerometer 1 $33.76 $33.76
Orientation IMU Fusion Industries and gyroscope
Breakout - BNO055

225
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Wear-Resistant Black McMaster-Carr Nylon sheet for 1 $22.94 $22.94

Nylon Sheet, 6 in. x 6 in. x sub-scale drag
1
2 in. tabs
Raspberry Pi Zero Adafruit Microcontroller 1 $16.25 $16.25
Industries
Raspberry Pi 3 Power Amazon LLC Plug for 1 $10.69 $10.69
Supply 5 V 2.5 A Micro powering
USB AC Adapter Charger Raspberry Pi
US Plug from wall
Adafruit PowerBoost 500 RM Gadgets Power booster 1 $12.35 $12.35
Basic - 5 V USB Boost @ for powering
500 mA from 1.8 V+ Raspberry Pi
with battery
AmazonBasics Amazon LLC HDMI cable for 1 $7.48 $7.48
High-Speed Mini-HDMI connecting
to HDMI TV Adapter Raspberry Pi to
Cable - 6 Feet monitor
1578 Lithium Ion Polymer Adafruit Batteries for 2 $10.06 $20.12
Battery - 3.7 V 500 mAh Industries sub-scale
2-Port USB Hub 1 Male to Amazon LLC USB splitter to 1 $8.99 $8.99
2 Female USB y Splitter connect mouse
Cable and keyboard to
Raspberry Pi
Male Micro USB 2.0 to Amazon LLC USB adapter for 1 $5.97 $5.97
Female USB Raspberry Pi
Multipurpose 6061 McMaster-Carr Aluminum to 1 $23.16 $23.16
Aluminum, 1 in. Thick x fabricate
2- 12 in. Wide, 1 Foot Long mechanism
Multipurpose 6061 McMaster-Carr Aluminum to 1 $3.68 $3.68
Aluminum, 14 in. Thick x fabricate
1- 21 in. Wide, 1 Foot Long mechanism
Slippery MDS-Filled McMaster-Carr Nylon to 1 $30.31 $30.31
Wear-Resistant Nylon fabricate drag
Sheet, 12 in. x 12 in. x 14 tabs
Slippery MDS-Filled McMaster-Carr Nylon to 1 $55.76 $55.76
Wear-Resistant Nylon fabricate slotted
Sheet, 12 in. x 12 in. x 12 deck for drag
in. tabs
Ultra-Low-Profile McMaster-Carr Shoulder screws 8 $4.55 $36.40
Precision Shoulder Screw, for mechanism
Slotted, 41 in. Shoulder
Diameter, 12 in. Shoulder
Length, 10-32 Thread
Low-Strength Steel McMaster-Carr Threaded rods 4 $0.64 $2.56
Threaded Rod, 14 in.-20 for structure
Thread Size, 1 Foot Long
1
Birch Rod, 36 in. Long, 2 McMaster-Carr Dowel rod for 1 $7.45 $7.45
in. Diameter alignment

226
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Steel Locknut with McMaster-Carr Lock nuts for 1 $5.42 $5.42

External-Tooth Lock attaching decks
1
Washer, Zinc-Plated, 4 to threaded rods
in.-20 Thread Size
Ball Bearing, Open, Trade McMaster-Carr Ball bearing for 2 $6.66 $13.32
Number R10, for 58 in. mechanism
Shaft Diameter
RCD 36845 D-845WP Hitec Servo motor 1 $94.31 $94.31
32-Bit Monster Torque
Waterproof Steel Gear
Servo
7.4 V 350 mAh 2S Lipo CBB Store Pack of 2 1 $19.99 $19.99
Battery 25C with USB batteries for
charger servo motor
3.7 V 450 mAh 502535 Wing Deli Batteries for 3 $6.49 $19.47
Lipo battery full-scale
Rechargeable Lithium electronics
Polymer ion
T453 6-Port LiPo Battery Tenergy Charger for LiPo 1 $8.99 $8.99
Charger batteries
PCB Manufacturing Osh Park PCB 1 $75.00 $75.00
TOTAL COST $555.92
Allocation $1300.00
Margin $744.08

STEM Engagement Vendor Description Qty Price Per Unit Total Cost
Components
Straws Walgreens Mission to Mars 1 $2.29 $2.29
Trashbags Walgreens Mission to Mars 1 $4.49 $4.49
LifeSavers Candy CVS Mission to Mars 1 $2.69 $2.69
Rubber Bands CVS Mission to Mars 1 $1.69 $1.69
Candy Canes (large) Walgreens Mission to Mars 2 $1.99 $3.98
Candy Canes (small) Walgreens Mission to Mars 1 $3.29 $3.29
TOTAL COST $18.43
Allocation $300.00
Margin $281.57

Miscellaneous Expenses Vendor Description Qty Price Per Unit Total Cost
Proposal Dinner Bruno’s Pizza Lead Compiling 1 $49.26 $49.26
Session
Preliminary Design Bruno’s Pizza Lead Compiling 1 $27.24 $27.24
Review Dinner Session
Boeing Meet & Greet Chick-Fil-A Session with Pat 1 $177.57 $177.57
Dolan

227
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Test Launch Tire Repair Discount Tire Test Launch Flat 1 $204.89 $204.89
Tire
TOTAL COST $458.96
Allocation $500.00
Margin $41.04

Competition Travel Vendor Description Qty Price Per Unit Total Cost
Expenses
Team Lodging Airbnb Rental Home for 4 $725 $2900.00
4 Nights of
Launch Week
Team Vehicle Rental Notre Dame Mini-Van Rentals 5 $275.00 $1375.00
Transportation
Services
Team Mentor Hotel Marriott Hotels Hotel Room for 4 4 $88.00 $352.00
Nights of Launch
Week
Gasoline Gas Stations en Fuel for 5 470 $2.61 $1226.70
route Mini-Vans per
mile
Food Restaurants en Food budget per 28 $112.36 $3146.08
route and in member for the
Alabama entirety of the
competition
TOTAL COST $8999.78
Allocation $9000
Margin $0.22

6.4 Project Timeline

The project plan adheres to NASA-specified milestones through the completion of

team-derived tasks. The following figures outline timelines for Vehicle Design (Figure 141), the
Recovery Subsystem (Figure 142), the Lunar Sample Retrieval System (Figure 143), the Air
Braking System (Figure 144), Systems & Safety (Figure 145), and STEM Engagement (Figure
146). Timelines pictured begin at the beginning of the University of Notre Dame’s semester on
January 14 (except the timelines for LSRS and ABS, which begin on January 13). All tasks and
milestones before this date have been completed, as displayed in the progress column.

228
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6.4.1 Vehicle Design Timeline

Figure 141: Second Semester Timeline for the Vehicle Design Team.

229
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6.4.2 Recovery Subsystem Timeline

Figure 142: Second Semester Timeline for the Recovery Team.

230
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6.4.3 Lunar Sample Retrieval System Timeline

Figure 143: Second Semester Timeline for the Lunar Sample Retrieval System Team.

231
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6.4.4 Air Braking System Timeline

Figure 144: Second Semester Timeline for the Air Braking System Team. The team is ahead of schedule
in finalizing their Kalman Filter, 4th Order Runge-Kutta, and PID codes.

232
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6.4.5 Systems & Safety Timeline

Figure 145: Second Semester Timeline for the Systems & Safety Team.

233
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

6.4.6 STEM Engagement Timeline

Figure 146: Second Semester Timeline for STEM Engagement.

6.4.6.1 STEM Engagement Project Descriptions

This year, the Notre Dame Rocketry Team will continue its involvement with the
community and efforts to encourage excellence in STEM through Educational outreach and
mentorship. In the past, the team participated in events working directly with students to
promote excellence in STEM and teamwork. These events featured hands-on activities, one on
one interaction between team member and student, and curriculum tailored to the age level.
The team plans to continue working with several of the same organizations as in years past,
including The Boys and Girls Club of St. Joseph County, the Society of Women’s Engineers, and
the Girl Scouts of Northern Indiana. In addition, the team intends on extending its reach into
the community and working with students from local parishes and schools. Activities will span
over a wide age range, ranging from 3rd to 12th grade. Several larger events that proved to be
successful in the past will be repeated, such as the Science Alive! fair held at the St. Joseph
County Library, the 5 week programs with the Boys and Girls Club, and the Girl Scout day. With
such a push for volunteer opportunities by members of the team, the team is overcoming the
proposal goal of 500 students, and aiming to reach at least 2000 by the time of competition.
Additionally, the team implemented a new mentorship program between returners and new
members, which will help promote STEM and rocketry internally. It will not only be a resource
for the sharing of knowledge, but also a way to foster relationships and good team unity. The
effort to educate and support between team members will strengthen leadership skills and
build confidence in one’s knowledge of the field. This program will make members better
mentors, teachers, and project leaders. It will allow them to make an even larger impact on the
community, fostering relationships with youth and encouraging the future of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. Through the demonstration of scientific
experiments, presentations, and mentorship, NDRT plans to have an incredibly successful
year; with the incredible dedication of team members and their efforts to promote creativity,

234
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

innovation and inspiration, this goal will be achievable.

Mission to Mars: The Mission to Mars program is designed for a 5 week curriculum. It is
unique to this year’s objective of building a Lunar Vehicle system and will provide students
with an understanding of planetary surface exploration. The first lesson provides background
information on Mars, including the physical features, the location, and the atmosphere,
through the form of a Bingo game. Students then discuss with NDRT members what a vehicle
would need to survive in these conditions in terms of fuel capacity, weight, durability, size, etc.
The second lesson is a modified version of the NASA Touchdown exercise, teaching the
principles of landing on different surfaces and shock absorbent systems in order to protect
fragile cargo. Students drop test systems constructed of paper cups with marshmallow
"astronauts" from a designated height and then discuss their results. The third lesson teaches
the importance of communication and conciseness in missions through the NASA Rover Races
lesson. Students work to complete a set course with a small team, where only the leader of the
team dictates commands. The fourth lesson challenges students to apply knowledge of the
factors learned in previous lessons through the design of a rubber band powered vehicle. The
focus is on structure, size, and ability to operate. Students will test the vehicles for
functionality, efficiency, and design. NDRT members assist in leading these tests and discuss
with the students upon completion. The fifth lesson is an overall collaboration of all lessons,
providing a review and evaluation of what the students learned in the form of a Mars Jeopardy
game.
Rockets & Robotics: Following the team’s goal of establishing connections around the
community, the event allows NDRT members to meet with students from the Marian Catholic
High School Rocketry and Robotics team. Ranging from freshmen to seniors, the students
shared their experiences as part of the high school rocketry and robotics team. NDRT
members gave a short presentation about the mission of the team and a summary of the
Student Launch Initiative. Emphasis was placed on the implementation of the engineering
design process and the mentorship that is required to successfully complete the task. Students
were then given the chance to ask questions to the NDRT members, whether about rocketry
and robotics, college, the competition rocket, and more.
Building Connections with LEGO League: The NDRT met with the St. Joseph Grade School
LEGO League team in an effort to learn more about the local community and work with a local
school. In a series of two events, NDRT members established connections with students
ranging from grades 5-8. These events focused on mentoring the students through learning
about their LEGO league projects, working with them to refine designs, and providing them
with additional challenges as teambuilding and brainstorming exercises.
Estes Rocket Project: In a partnership with STARBASE Indiana, a Department of Defense
funded STEM engagement foundation, NDRT will present to 5th grade students from local
underprivileged schools. The presentation will include a summary of the Student Launch
Initiative, background information about rocketry, and a brief demonstration using an Estes
rocket. This presentation is a fantastic opportunity to foster relationships between NDRT
members and students from around the community who may not otherwise have exposure to
STEM or access to STEM activities.

235
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

Space Scouts: In partnership with the Girl Scouts of Northern Indiana, the NDRT will host
two events that will provide a series of rocketry related activities and challenges. The specific
lesson is still being determined.
Shoot for the Stars: The NDRT will provide rocketry related challenges and teambuilding
exercises hosted at a booth during a Notre Dame basketball game. The specific lesson is still
being determined.

236
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

A Full Black Powder Calculations

Initial Separation Event: Drogue Parachute Deployment

π
F = (τ)(A s )(n) = (10, 000 psi)( (0.086 (in.))2 )(2 Shear Pins) = 116 lbf
4

F 116 lbf
P= = π 2
= 4.1 psi = 0.28 atm
Ab 4 (6 in.)

π
Chamber Volume = (bulkhead diameter (in.)2 )(height (in.)2 )
4
π
= (6 (in.)2 )(11 (in.)) = 311 (in.)3 = 5.1 L
4

PV (0.28 atm)(5.1 L)
ng = = = 0.0095 moles gas
RT (0.082057 (L*atm/mol/K))(1837.2 K)

0.0095 moles gas 2 mol KNO3 101.1 g KNO3

× × = 0.48 g KNO3
1 4 mol gas 1 mol KNO3

0.0095 moles gas 1 mol S 32.1 g S

× × = 0.076 g S
1 4 mol gas 1 mol S

0.0095 moles gas 3 mol C 12.0 g C

× × = 0.085 g C
1 4 mol gas 1 mol C

0.48 g KNO3 + 0.076 g S + 0.085 g C = 0.64 g Black Powder

With a FOS of 25%, 0.8 g of black powder is needed for the initial separation event. This
will be rounded to 1 g of black powder for ease of measuring in the launch field.

Secondary Separation Event: Main Parachute Deployment

π
F = (τ)(A s )(n) = (10, 000 psi)( (0.086 (in.))2 )(4 Shear Pins) = 232 lbf
4

F 232 lbf
P= = π 2
= 8.2 psi = 0.56 atm
Ab 4 (6 in.)

π
Chamber Volume = (bulkhead diameter (in.)2 )(height (in.)2 )
4
π
= (6 (in.)2 )(31 (in.)) = 876 (in.)3 = 14.3 L
4

A1
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

PV (0.56 atm)(14.3 L)
ng = = = 0.053 moles gas
RT (0.082057 (L*atm/mol/K))(1837.2 K)

0.053 moles gas 2 mol KNO3 101.1 g KNO3

× × = 2.7 g KNO3
1 4 mol gas 1 mol KNO3

0.053 moles gas 1 mol S 32.1 g S

× × = 0.43 g S
1 4 mol gas 1 mol S

0.053 moles gas 3 mol C 12.0 g C

× × = 0.48 g C
1 4 mol gas 1 mol C

2.7 g KNO3 + 0.43 g S + 0.48 g C = 3.6 g Black Powder

With a FOS of 25%, 4.5 g of black powder is needed for the secondary separation event.
This will be rounded to 5 g of black powder for ease of measuring in the launch field.

Tertiary Separation Event: Nose Cone Ejection for Payload Deployment

π
F = (τ)(A s )(n) = (10, 000 psi )( (0.112 i n.)2 )(2 Shear P i ns) = 197 l b f
4

F 197 l b f
P= = π 2
= 12.4 psi = 0.843 at m
Ab 4 (4.5 i n.)

π
C hamber V ol ume = (bul khead d i amet er (i n.)2 )(hei g ht (i n.)2 )
4
π
= (4.5 (i n.)2 )(3 (i n.)) = 47.7 (i n.)3 = 0.782 L
4

PV (0.843 at m)(0.782 L)
ng = = = 0.004372 mol es g as
RT (0.082057 (L ∗ at m/mol /K ))(1837.2 K )

0.004372 mol g as 2 mol K NO 3 101.1 g K NO 3

× × = 0.221 g K NO 3
1 4 mol g as 1 mol K NO 3

0.004372 mol g as 1 mol S 32.1 g S

× × = 0.0351 g S
1 4 mol g as 1 mol S

0.004372 mol g as 3 mol C 12.0 g C

× × = 0.0393 g C
1 4 mol g as 1 mol C

A2
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

0.221 g K NO 3 + 0.0351 g S + 0.0393 g C = 0.295 g Bl ack Powd er

With a FOS of 20%, 0.354 g of black powder are needed for the tertiary separation event.

Summary of Black Powder Charges

Table 96: Summary of Black Powder Charges

Separation Event Amount of Black Powder

Initial (Drogue) 1 g Black Powder
Secondary (Main) 5 g Black Powder
Tertiary (Nose Cone) 0.354 g Black Powder

A3
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

B ABS

B.1 Kalman Filter Python Script

1 import numpy as np
2 import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
3 import openpyxl
4 """
5 Variables:
6 x−state vector
7 phi−state transition matrix
8 H−state to sensor matrix
9 """
10 #Constructs a matrix to move from the body frame to the inertial frame
11 def body_to_inertial(roll,pitch,yaw):
12 c = lambda x: np.cos(x)
13 s = lambda x: np.sin(x)
14 out = np.zeros((3,3))
15 out[0,0] = c(yaw)*c(pitch)
16 out[0,1] = c(yaw)*s(roll)*s(pitch)−c(roll)*s(yaw)
17 out[0,2] = s(roll)*s(yaw)+c(roll)*c(yaw)*s(pitch)
18 out[1,0] = c(pitch)*s(yaw)
19 out[1,1] = c(roll)*c(yaw)+s(roll)*s(yaw)*s(pitch)
20 out[1,2] = c(roll)*s(yaw)*s(pitch)−c(yaw)*s(roll)
21 out[2,0] = −s(pitch)
22 out[2,1] = c(pitch)*s(roll)
23 out[2,2] = c(roll)*c(pitch)
24 return out
25 #Transforms body acceleration to inertial acceleration
26 def accel_trans(a,roll,pitch,yaw):
27 R = body_to_inertial(roll,pitch,yaw)
28 #R = inertial_to_body(roll,pitch,yaw)
29 a_trans = R@a
30 return a_trans
31 #Implements the Kalman Filter−May later be replaced by the FilterPy Library
32 class Kalman():
33 def __init__(self,var_m,var_s,var_a):
34 self.T = 0
35 self.x = np.array([0,0,0])
36 self.gen_phi()
37 self.H = np.array([[1,0,0],
38 [0,0,1]])
39 self.Q = np.array([[0,0,0],
40 [0,0,0],
41 [0,0,var_m]])
42 self.R = np.array([[var_s,0],
43 [0,var_a]])

A4
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

44 self.P = np.zeros((3,3))
45 self.K = np.zeros((3,2))
46 self.I = np.eye(3)
47 #Generate the transition matrix from the ∆ t
48 def gen_phi(self):
49 self.phi = np.array([[1,self.T,self.T**2/2],
50 [0,1,self.T],
51 [0,0,1]])
52 #Updates the state
53 def update_state(self,in_z, ∆ _t): #in_z is input sensor readings
54 self.T = ∆ _t
55 self.gen_phi()
56 xhatpre = [email protected]
57 xhatpost = xhatpre+self.K@(in_z−self.H@xhatpre)
58 Pkpre = [email protected]@self.phi.T+self.Q
59 Pkpost = (self.I−[email protected])@Pkpre
60 Kk = [email protected]@np.linalg.inv(self.H@[email protected]+self.R)
61 self.x = xhatpost
62 self.P = Pkpost
63 self.K = Kk
64 #Outputs the current state
65 def current_state(self):
66 return self.x
67 #reads in a row of the sheet and creates a measurement
68 def create_measurement(row,sheet):
69 #Read in BNO Absolute Orientation and convert to radians
70 roll = sheet['H'+str(row)].value*np.pi/180
71 pitch = sheet['I'+str(row)].value*np.pi/180
72 yaw = sheet['J'+str(row)].value*np.pi/180
73 #Read in altitude
74 y = sheet['N'+str(row)].value
75 #Read in ADXL Acceleration and translate to vertical
76 ax = sheet['O'+str(row)].value
77 ay = sheet['P'+str(row)].value
78 az = sheet['Q'+str(row)].value
79 a_trans = accel_trans(np.array([ax,ay,az]),roll,pitch,yaw)
80 return np.array([y,a_trans[1]])
81 if __name__ == '__main__':
82 wb = openpyxl.load_workbook('NoTab.xlsx')
83 sheet = wb['Filtered Data']
84 #Set the parameters of the variances
85 var_m = 3
86 var_s = .1
87 var_a = 5
88 filty = Kalman(var_m,var_s,var_a)
89 states = []
90 x_rec = []
91 a_rec = []
92 prev_t = sheet['A2'].value
93 for i in range(2,200):#len([i for i in sheet.rows])):
94 z = create_measurement(i,sheet)

A5
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

95 t = sheet['A'+str(i)].value
96 ∆ _t = t − prev_t

97 prev_t = t
98 filty.update_state(z, ∆ _t)
99 states.append(filty.current_state())
100 x_rec.append(z[0])
101 a_rec.append(z[1])
102 #Plot Output
103 states = np.array(states)
104 plt.clf()
105 plt.subplot(131)
106 plt.plot(x_rec,label='Sensor Position')
107 plt.plot(states[:,0],label='Kalman Position')
108 plt.legend()
109 plt.subplot(132)
110 plt.plot(states[:,1],label='Kalman Velocity')
111 plt.legend()
112 plt.subplot(133)
113 plt.plot(a_rec,label='Sensor Acceleration')
114 plt.plot(states[:,2],label='Kalman Acceleration')
115 plt.legend()
116 plt.show()

B.2 PID Algorithm

1 %% PID
2 % Set gains
3 kP = 2; % Proportional Gain
4 kD = 0.5; % Derivative Gain
5 kI = 0.05; % Integral Gain
6

7 %% Load ideal flight path

8 ideal = load('Ideal_Flight_Profile.csv');
9 yi = ideal(:,1); % altitude of ideal flight
10 vi = ideal(:,2); % vertical velocity of ideal flight
11 ymax = 4444; % target altitude
12

13 %% Given Quantities
14 mr = 831/(16*32.2); % Mass of rocket (oz converted to slugs)
15 g = 32.2; % [ft/s^2]
16 Cd_r = 0.30; % drag coefficient of rocket based on wind tunnel test
17 Cd_t = 2.06; % drag coefficient of drag tabs based on CFD results
18 Dr = (8/12); % Largest diameter of rocket [ft]
19 Ar = (pi/4)*Dr^2; % Incident area of rocket due to largest diameter [ft^2]
20 At = 4*1*1.995/144; %[ft^2] full extension area of tabs
21 rho = 0.0023769; % density of air [slug/ft^3]

A6
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

22 theta = 10*pi/180; % fixed flight angle (degrees converted to radians)

23 dt = .01; %timestep
24

25 %% Conditions at burnout
26 iCnt = 2; % start main loop counter
27 y(iCnt) = 975.48; % altitude at burnout (this can be changed)
28 y(iCnt−1) = y(iCnt);
29 v(iCnt) = max(vi); % velocity at burnout (this can be changed)
30 v(iCnt−1) = v(iCnt);
31 phi(iCnt) = 0; % tabs are fully retracted at the start
32 t(iCnt) = 0;
33 err1(iCnt) = v(iCnt)−max(vi);
34 phi(iCnt+1) = 0;
35

36 while (v(iCnt) > 0) % run until apogee is reached

37 % Do one step of numerical integration of the rocket's position
38 [y,v,phi] = rocketKutta(y,v,theta,phi,dt,rho,Ar,Cd_r,Cd_t,g,mr,iCnt);
39

40 % increment main loop counter

41 iCnt = iCnt + 1;
42

43 % Increment time vector

44 t(iCnt) = t(iCnt−1) + dt;
45

46 %Find error between new position and road

47 err1(iCnt) = error1(y,v,yi,vi,iCnt,ymax);
48

49 %Find the approximate derivative to the error function

50 % Compute approximate derivative of the error term using backward
51 % finite difference technique
52 derivError = derror(y,err1,iCnt);
53

54 %Find the approximate integral to the error function

55 % Compute the approximate integral of the error function
56 intError = ierror(y,err1,iCnt);
57

58 %% PID control law for shaft angle

59 % Compute new value for phi using PID control law
60 phi(iCnt) = kP*err1(iCnt) + kD*derivError + kI*intError;
61 end

B.3 4th Order Runge-Kutta Flight Simulation

1 function [y,v,phi] = rocketKutta(y,v,theta,phi,dt,rho,Ar,Cd_r,Cd_t,g,mr,...

2 iCnt)
3 % rocketKutta performs one time step of the 4th order Runge−Kutta method

A7
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

4 % numerical approximation for marching forward the equation

5 % of motion for the rocket. It includes limits on the shaft angle
6 % and limits on change in shaft angle per time step based on the motor
7 % and mechanism design.
8

9 % Set parameters
10 maxPhi = 63.5*pi/180; % maximum absolute value of phi in radians
11

12 % Compute the maximum amount the shaft can turn in one time step
13 maxDeltaPhi = 60*pi/180/.17*dt; %(rad)
14

15 % Find the current array counter

16 iCnt = length(y);
17

18 % compute the change in phi between timesteps

19 ∆ Phi = phi(iCnt) − phi(iCnt−1);

20 % If the ∆ phi is too great change to max allowable

21 if abs( ∆ Phi) > maxDeltaPhi
22 if ∆ Phi < 0
23 phi(iCnt) = phi(iCnt−1) − maxDeltaPhi ;
24 else
25 phi(iCnt) = phi(iCnt−1) + maxDeltaPhi ;
26 end
27 disp(['Change in steering angle per timestep too great at...
28 (',num2str(y(iCnt)),',',num2str(v(iCnt)),').']);
29 end
30

31 % Now check limits on phi. If phi is out of its max, change commanded phi
32 % to the limits.
33

34 if phi(iCnt) < 0
35 phi(iCnt) = 0;
36 elseif phi(iCnt) > maxPhi
37 phi(iCnt) = maxPhi;
38 %flag = 3;
39 disp(['Shaft angle too great. It was set to 63.5 degrees at...
40 (',num2str(y(iCnt)),',',num2str(v(iCnt)),').']);
41 end
42

43 % Perform 4th order Runge−Kutta to find new position and velocity

44 L= (−9.16e−7)*rad2deg(phi(iCnt))^3 + (−1.66e−4)*rad2deg(phi(iCnt))^2...
45 + 0.0317*rad2deg(phi(iCnt)) − 0.00131; % extension of tabs based on phi
46 At = 4*L*1.995/144; % Resulting area of tabs [ft^2]
47 k11 = v(iCnt)*dt;
48 k21 = (−((rho*Ar*Cd_r)/(2*mr*cos(theta)))*(v(iCnt)^2) −...
49 ((rho*At*Cd_t)/(2*mr*cos(theta)))*(v(iCnt)^2) − g)*dt;
50 k12 = (v(iCnt) + 0.5*k21)*dt;
51 k22 = (−((rho*Ar*Cd_r)/(2*mr*cos(theta)))*((v(iCnt)+0.5*k21)^2) −...
52 ((rho*At*Cd_t)/(2*mr*cos(theta)))*((v(iCnt)+0.5*k21)^2) − g)*dt;
53 k13 = (v(iCnt) + 0.5*k22)*dt;
54 k23 = (−((rho*Ar*Cd_r)/(2*mr*cos(theta)))*((v(iCnt)+0.5*k22)^2) −...

A8
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

55 ((rho*At*Cd_t)/(2*mr*cos(theta)))*((v(iCnt)+0.5*k22)^2) − g)*dt;
56 k14 = (v(iCnt) + k23)*dt;
57 k24 = (−((rho*Ar*Cd_r)/(2*mr*cos(theta)))*((v(iCnt)+k23)^2) −...
58 ((rho*At*Cd_t)/(2*mr*cos(theta)))*((v(iCnt)+k23)^2) − g)*dt;
59

60 y(iCnt+1) = y(iCnt) + (1/6)*(k11 + 2*k12 + 2*k13 + k14);

61 v(iCnt+1) = v(iCnt) + (1/6)*(k21 + 2*k22 + 2*k23 + k24);
62 phi(iCnt+1) = phi(iCnt);

B.4 PID Error Functions

1 function [err1] = error1(y,v,yi,vi,iCnt,ymax)

2

3 yr = y(iCnt);
4 yid = yi(1);
5 i = 1;
6

7 while (yid ≤ yr) && (i < length(yi)) % search the whole vector until the
8 %altitudes approx. match
9 if i < length(yi)
10 yid = yi(i);
11 i = i+1;
12 else
13 yid = ymax;
14 end
15 end
16

17 m = (vi(i) − vi(i−1)) / (yi(i) − yi(i−1));

18 videal = m*(y(iCnt) − yi(i−1)) + vi(i−1); % calc ideal velocity at this
19 %altitude (linear approx)
20 vrocket = v(iCnt); % velocity of rocket at this point
21 err1 = vrocket − videal;
22

23 if yid < 1000

24 err1 = 0; % does not work until alt = 1000 feet to avoid
25 %"early burnout" issue
26 end
27

28 function [derivError] = derror(y,err1,iCnt)

29

30 derivError = (err1(iCnt)−err1(iCnt−1))/(y(iCnt)−y(iCnt−1));
31

32 function [intError] = ierror(y,err1,iCnt)

33

34 intError=0;
35 for i=2:iCnt

A9
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

36 if err1(i) ≥ .1 || err1(i) ≤ −.1

37 intError= intError + (y(i)−y(i−1))*(err1(i)+err1(i−1))/2;
38 else
39 intError=0;
40 end
41 end

A10
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

C Some team’s stuff...

C.1 Kewl Complicated Algorithm Code

1 % This is the formatting for MATLAB code

2 % It is snackilicious
3 i = 1;
4 for i = 1:100
5 disp('yeah')
6 i = i + 1;
7 end

A11
University of Notre Dame 2019-20 Critical Design Review

D Another team’s stuff...

D.1 Anotha Kewl Complicated Algorithm Code

1 % This is the formatting for MATLAB code

2 % It is snackilicious
3 i = 1;
4 for i = 1:100
5 disp('yeah')
6 i = i + 1;
7 end

E References

A12