UC Berkeley Space Technologies and Rocketry

NASA Student Launch Preliminary Design Review

Project Arktos

432 Eshleman Hall, MC 4500

Berkeley, CA 94720-4500

November 3, 2017
Contents

1 Summary of PDR Report 4

1.1 Team Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Launch Vehicle Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Payload Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Changes Made Since Proposal 5

2.1 Airframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Project Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Vehicle Criteria 6
3.1 Airframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1 Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2 Success Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.4 Transition Piece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.5 Fins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.6 Motor Tube Design and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.7 Motor Choice and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.8 Boat Tail Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.9 Nose Cone Choice and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Design Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1 General Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2 Weight Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3 Length Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.4 Mission Performance Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 Recovery Subsystem 19
4.1 Component Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1.1 Avionics Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1.2 Avionics Bay Door . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.3 Bulkheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.4 Centering Rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1.5 Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.6 Shock Cords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2 Deployment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3 Drawings and Schematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.4 Black Powder Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.5 Kinetic Energy Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.5.1 Flight Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1
 4.6 Rocket Locating Transmitters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5 Safety 34
5.1 Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2 Personnel Hazards Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4 Environmental Risks Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.5 Project Risks and Consequences Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6 Payload Criteria 55
6.1 Payload Description/Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.2 Payload Electrical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.3 Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.3.1 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.3.2 Ejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.3.3 Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.3.4 Solar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.4 Vehicle Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

7 Project Plan 73
7.1 NSL Handbook Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.1.1 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.1.2 Airframe Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.1.3 Payload Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.2 Team Derived Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.2.1 General TDRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.2.2 Payload TDRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.3 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.3.1 Airframe Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.3.2 Recovery Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.3.3 Payload Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7.3.4 Outreach Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7.4 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7.4.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7.4.2 Description of Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7.4.3 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7.4.4 Distribution of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7.4.5 Material Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.5 Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.5.1 Design Team Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.5.2 Outreach Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Appendix A List of Project Leaders 90

Appendix B Safety Agreement 91

2
Appendix C NAR High Power Rocket Safety Code 92

Appendix D Matlab Code for Recovery 94

3
1 Summary of PDR Report
1.1 Team Summary
Team Name:
UC Berkeley Space Technologies and Rocketry (STAR)
Team Contact Address
432 Eshlemann Hall, MC 4500
Berkeley, CA 94720-4500
Team Mentor
David Raimondi
President: Livermore Unit. National Association of Rocketry (LUNAR)
NAR #82676, Level 3

1.2 Launch Vehicle Summary

The length of the launch vehicle is 113in. The wet weight of the launch vehicle is 27.13
lbs and the dry weight is 22.19 lbs. The launch vehicle utilizes a Cesaroni L730 motor to
achieve a simulated apogee of approximately 5555ft.
The recovery system implements a same-side dual deployment method, with drogue chute
deployment at apogee and main chute deployment at 800ft AGL. The 24in elliptical drogue
chute and 72in toroidal main chute are systematically integrated with a series of two L2
tender descenders and black powder ejection charges. The ejection is controlled by two
altimeters, which sit on an avionics sled design. Furthermore, the avionics bay will be
accessible from the airframe exterior via a small door. Further launch vehicle details can be
found on our Flysheet at https://stars.berkeley.edu/sl.html.

1.3 Payload Summary

The goal of the payload experiment is to have an autonomous rover deploy from the
rocket, drive over five feet away, and deploy solar panels. The payload will be located
above the booster and recovery portions of the rocket and directly below the nosecone on
the launchpad and during ascent. After recovery and upon landing, a pneumatic cylinder
will activate and break two 40lb shear pins, separating the payload section from the lower
transition section. After separation, a scissor lift will activate, pushing the rover out of the
payload tube. Once the rover has emerged from the rocket, the rover will drive forward
approximately 10ft to fulfill the handbook requirements. Upon stopping, it will deploy the
solar panels by rotating the hood of the rover up, revealing the two sheets of solar panels.
For ease of organization, payload is split into four subsystems:
• Deployment - Separation of the payload section and the radio link
• Ejection - Ejecting the rover from the payload aiframe section
• Movement - Rover design and its movement away from the rocket
• Solar - Solar subsystem on the rover

4
2 Changes Made Since Proposal
2.1 Airframe
The internal layout of the airframe has changed significantly since the proposal for NASA
SL 2018. Additionally, some external changes have resulted from the internal changes. The
major change to the airframe is that the length of the rocket built from 6in tube has been
shortened significantly, and the length of the 4in section has been lengthened. This results
in a lighter, more aerodynamic, and more stable rocket. In order to compensate for these
external changes, the avionics bay has been modified to fit in the section of 4in tubing.
Additionally, the parachutes have been moved from the aft end of the avionics bay to the
fore end of the avionics bay. As a result, the parachutes are deployed from a more centralized
location on the rocket. Additionally, the motor size has been reduced from a 75mm diameter
to a 54mm diameter. The current motor in use is a Cesaroni L730, whereas an Aerotech
L1150 was used in the proposal. More accurate mass calculations were acquired from the
payload, electrical, and recovery subteams, and as a result, the overall weight of the rocket
was significantly reduced.

2.2 Payload
The payload Deployment and Ejection plans have undergone major revisions since the
last proposal for NASA SL 2018. The original Deployment plan consisted of using a black
powder charge on a permanent bulkhead that, when activated, would create a force capable
of breaking the shear pins connecting the payload section to the rest of the airframe. A
pre-compressed spring behind a protective bulkhead will eject said bulkhead through the
opening on the bottom of the payload section, effectively making room for the rover to exit
the airframe.
After analyzing the amount of force the black powder charge would produce, it was
determined that using black powder in close proximity to the rover payload would be ill-
advised. To avoid causing damage to the rover, the Deployment plan was changed to utilize
a pneumatic ejection system to clear space for the ejection of the rover. This design should
be a safer and more reliable method of deployment.
The original plan for Ejection involved using a large spring to force the rover out of
the airframe, but that has since been changed to a scissor lift system. The primary reason
behind this change is that a spring system would present undue risk in terms of damaging
the rover. In the previous design, because the spring would have been compressed prior to
launch with the rover directly next to it, if the clasps securing the spring during flight broke
or otherwise failed prior to planned ejection, the rover would not be able to exit the airframe
and could likely be damaged during the process. Any spring powerful enough to eject the
rover would be difficult to compress safely during packaging of the payload and may be too
complicated and potentially unreliable during ejection. As a result, the design was modified
to a scissor lift system that is more reliable, more controllable, and less dangerous to the
rover and airframe.
For the most part, the design of the rover itself has remained the same except for one
key alteration: the body design. The body of the rover was originally going to be cylindrical

5
to maximize space within the payload section of the rocket. The new plan is to have a
rectangular body to promote ease of manufacturing and mounting of parts. Most of the
electronics housed inside the rover’s body are rectangular, so having a rectangular body will
allow for more efficient packing. Additionally, the solar panels will now be mounted on the
hood of the rover on a shell in the main rover body to fully satisfy the solar panel unfolding
requirement.

2.3 Recovery
The parachute deployment system design has remained unchanged from the initial pro-
posal. The avionics bay design has been updated. The decision was made to mount an
I-beam-shaped sled vertically inside the avionics bay instead of using a horizontally-mounted
sled. The sled will now be oriented along the flight path of the launch vehicle instead of
perpendicular to it. The sled will no longer have composite sheets above and below it and
will instead fit directly into the bulkheads. The change in sled orientation also leads to a
change in bulkhead design. The bulkheads now consist of two one-fourth in pieces of ply-
wood epoxied together, located in between the coupler and the airframe. Blue Tube will
continued to be used as the material for the airframe and the coupler. The new design for
the sled still includes rails so that it may slide out for easy access, and the avionics bay will
still be accessed via a door. It has now been decided that this door will be secured during
flight by four screws, one at each corner.

2.4 Project Plan

Due to project delays and a launch day cancellation due to fire concerns, the sub-scale
test flight has been moved from November 4th to December 2nd.

3 Vehicle Criteria
3.1 Airframe
3.1.1 Mission Statement
Our mission is to successfully design, manufacture, and fly a fully capable rocket to 5280
feet (1 mile) carrying a deployable rover with solar panel. This will serve as a test or trial
run for potential rover missions that NASA will conduct on Mars in the future.

3.1.2 Success Criteria

• Airframe is defined as any of the external tubing, coupler tubing, motor tubing, fins,
nose cone, and transition piece. There will be no cracks in the airframe.

• There will be no unwanted separation between the pieces of the rocket.

• The stress in the airframe will not exceed acceptable levels. Acceptable is defined as
below the yield strength for the specific member of tubing in question.

6
 • Meets all vehicle requirements set from NASA SL 2018 Handbook.

3.1.3 Objectives
• To educate the public in rocketry

• To advance the technology in aerospace systems and rocketry

• To promote aerospace as a major at UC Berkeley

3.1.4 Transition Piece

A key element in the design of our rocket is the addition of a transition piece, which
serves the purpose of reducing the rockets diameter. This causes a shift in the center of
gravity, which improves the rockets stability, giving more leeway in other parts of the design
to add different kinds of elements that are not necessarily optimal for the stability.
It is clear that a transition piece is essential to change the rockets diameter partway
through. In the case of a rocket with no transition where the nose cone is attached straight
onto the body tube at the same diameter, the rocket can experience turbulence at the rear
end. This turbulence can distort the flight path of the rocket, mitigating the effect of the
fins. To counter this problem, the fins have to be larger to make the airflow smoother on
the rocket and improve the stability again. This much of a change in the fin size becomes
impractical, however, to then physically manage the rocket and minimize the chance of failure
during launch. Therefore, the only option left is to create a transition element - a part of
the rockets body tube shaped like a frustum, resulting in a smooth change in diameter from
that required by the payload and motor elements and the minimum feasible diameter at the
nose cone.
The transition piece can be customized in multiple configurations, which are mainly
characterised by the length over which the diameter changes. A tradeoff then arises - a
longer transition would improve airflow as it reduces drag, but the cost of an increased
surface area and therefore increased materials costs.
However, upon quantifying the increase in the surface area, it turned out to have a
relatively insignificant effect on the overall cost. In addition, the cost of having the transition
piece at all is offset by current plans of constructing it with facilities that are available to
the team (as will be detailed later on). Therefore, as the increase in cost is miniscule, and
the expense of having the piece at all is not a factor, there is no significant restriction on the
specifications of the transition piece thus far.
Other factors somewhat restrict the dimensions of the transition piece. The pre-made
nose cone that is being employed is compatible only with body tubes of specific diameters,
of which 6in was the most practical since any less would reduce stability and any more
would reduce the positive impact of having a transition piece in the first place. In addition,
payload components and the motor tubing require a minimum diameter of 6in. Therefore,
the transition pieces fore and aft diameters are 6in and 4in respectively.
Deciding on the length was more complicated, as it depends heavily on the complex
subject of airflow over the exterior of the rocket. Any change in the diameter, however
gradual, is bound to change these factors, so a decision must be made on how to balance

7
the length with how drastic this change is. This was determined by running simulations
in OpenRocket for different values of the transition length, and looking at how it affected
the flight path. For some values, no set of small changes in other parameters (e.g. fin
size, payload mass, overall body tube length) was able to create a model with the required
stability and apogee. Put another way, no possible rocket design could have a transition of
that length without redesigning every other aspect. However, the range of feasible lengths
was larger than previously anticipated, from 4in to 12in.

When the transition length was longer, the rocket’s descent between apogee and recovery
device deployment was found to be slightly more gradual, but the margin between the two

8
was small and not something on which a decision could be based off of. Therefore, a length
of 8in was selected, in the middle of the previously-determined feasible range, and found
that this gave an optimally desired apogee and stability.
Issues associated with the addition of this transition include the possibility of it breaking
apart during launch, which can be mitigated by the use of fiberglass in the construction of
the transition piece. Additionally, it may make the manufacturing process more difficult,
as well as aerodynamic analysis, but its inclusion provides clear benefits that outweigh this.
Manufacturing will be carried out via a fiberglass layup on a 3D printed mold.
In conclusion, the addition of a transition section presents clear benefits regarding the
rockets mass, stability, apogee, and tolerable error in other factors.

3.1.5 Fins
A trapezoidal shape was chosen for the fins, as it is the optimal shape for reducing drag
on the rocket. The size of the fins comes at a compromise between surface area and increased
stability. Large fins may provide more stability, but they also contribute to a larger drag force
due to their increased surface area. Similarly, smaller fins imply less drag, but a potentially
reduced stability as well. Ultimately, the finalized geometry, which is optimal for our rocket,
is made of an 8in root chord, and a 6in tip chord, at a height of 5in.
The fin material will be fiberglass, as it is the best combination of strength and weight
that fits our budget. The particular type of fiberglass that will be used is G10, also called
Garolite, which has a tensile strength of 7.2 ± 0.3 · 107 P a, at a density of 2.0 · 103 kg/m3 .
Adding an airfoil significantly reduces drag and increases the apogee. However, it makes
the manufacturing of the fins more challenging. It is crucial that the height-to-length ratio
of the airfoil stay constant, meaning that as the length gets shorter, the fins are at risk of
being too thin and breaking off. Additionally, it is important to note that a large apogee
can be detrimental, as that could lead to the disqualification of the team. For this reason,
it was ultimately decided that the fins will not have an airfoil such that the cross-section of
the fins is a rectangle. To compensate for the induced drag force, the edges of the fins will
be filleted, such that they are rounded off.

3.1.6 Motor Tube Design and Alternatives

The motor tube design was primarily motivated by the design of the rest of the airframe.
A 4in diameter lower end and minimization of overall length led to the general geometry of
the motor tube. The geometry was also decided upon in tandem with the motor choice. The
specific length (26in) and diameter (Outer: 2.276in, Inner: 2.152in) were chosen to properly
fit the chosen motor.
The material used for the motor tube is kraft phenolic. From our research, kraft phenolic
offers the best heat resistivity and strength for the price. Other options that were considered
were Blue Tube (low heat resistivity), fiberglass (expensive), and carbon fiber (expensive).

3.1.7 Motor Choice and Alternatives

Motor choice was governed by the rest of the airframe design, similarly to the motor tube.
The Cesaroni L730 best suits our current design with the goals of minimizing rocket length,

9
providing safe apogee approximation, and capitalizing on use of the boat tail. Other motors
such as the Cesaroni L990-BS produced similar results but increased our expected maximum
acceleration too much (around 30%). An additional alternative motor is the Animal Works
L777 which gives a similar apogee. The local supplier for rocket motors used by CalSTAR
currently does not carry motors manufactured by Animal Motor Works, so the Cesaroni
L730 was chosen over it.

3.1.8 Boat Tail Design Alternatives

Sub-Scale Boat Tail

There will be no boat tail or tailcone retainer on the subscale rocket. This is due to
the very similar outer diameters of the booster tubing and the motor retention cap. Due to
the small transition in diameters between the motor tube and the end of the booster tube,
manufacturing a boat tail to fit over the motor retention cap would yield a boat tail with
an inclination angle around 2 degrees, which is too low to sufficiently reduce drag. Since
this would negligibly reduce base drag but still add mass to the vehicle, this design was not
selected.
One of the possible ways to compensate for the large diameter of the motor retention
system would be to have a tailcone retention cap, where the boat tail also functions as
the retention cap. In this way, a smaller base diameter can be achieved for the boat tail,
decreasing the amount of base drag. Several of these tailcone retainer caps are available
for purchase from multiple vendors, however none of them are the correct diameters to fit
both the 2.56in Blue Tube and a 54mm motor. Manufacturing this part in house would be
difficult with the machinery accessible to the team. Even if we could manufacture this part,
the reduction in drag would not be as significant as on the full scale rocket. The difficulty
in manufacturing and the relatively low reduction in drag led to opting out of this design
choice.

Full Scale Boat Tail

A conical fiberglass boat tail will be manufactured with a forward diameter of 4.014in, an
aft diameter of 2.465in, and a length of 4.7in. The aft end of the boat tail will be rounded out
via sanding, and the boat tail should fit snugly around the motor retention system. There
will be a section of coupler 0.5in in length on the forward end of the boat tail so that it can
be fitted and secured correctly to the end of the rocket.
A conical boat tail was selected over several other shapes, such as ogive and power series.
These other shapes may be beneficial for longer boat tails or wider rockets, but for our rocket
a conical boat tail was best. This was primarily determined via OpenRocket Data.
The dimensions of the boat tail could have been different in order to minimize base
drag; however, our design had a major constraint in the motor retention system. The inner
diameter of the base of the boat tail is designed to fit around the motor retainer, and the
length was determined by optimizing the boat tail transition angle to roughly 9 degrees.
This serves to maximize the rediction of base drag, as confirmed by OpenRocket apogee
simulations.

10
 Fiberglass was chosen as the material for our boat tail over plastic, aluminum, and a few
other materials. Aluminum and other metals are difficult and expensive to manufacture, and
plastics do not have sufficient heat resistance to survive in such close proximity to the thrust
exhaust. Thus, fiberglass cured with high temperature epoxy was selected as our material,
as it can be easily manufactued to our specifications and can withstand the stresses of the
environment.

3.1.9 Nose Cone Choice and Alternatives

The nose cone choice accompanying the rocket design is intended to minimize inflicted
drag and overall rocket mass. As the rocket is designed for subsonic flight, nose cones of ogive
geometry are economically and aerodynamically ideal. Additionally, the aforementioned
constraints of drag and mass further favor nose cones of minimum size and weight Such
constraints indicate that a fiberglass is the ideal material for this rocket due to its high
compressive strength and low weight. In accordance with Student Launch guidelines, the
nose cone cannot be manufactured in-house, and must be one commercially available by
a third-party enterprise. As a result, the optimal nose cone choice for this rocket would
be an ogive, fiberglass nose cone of a diameter of 6in and a tip-to-shoulder length of 24in,
as this is the smallest and lightest nose cone that is commercially available. Alternatives
for nose cone choice are conical, fiberglass nose cones of 6in diameter and 30in length, and
ogive, fiberglass nose cones of 6in diameter and 30in length. However, as these nose cones
significantly increase overall mass (by roughly 8oz), as well as net drag as modelled by
OpenRocket, the preference of nose cone aligns with the design of the aforementioned nose
cone.

3.2 Design Metrics

3.2.1 General Overview

• Length: 9.42 ft

11
 • Wet Weight: 27.125 lbs

• Dry Weight: 24.14 lbs

• Apogee: 5555ft

• Maximum Velocity: 0.54 Mach

• Maximum Acceleration: 8.95 g

• Stability: 2.41 cal

3.2.2 Weight Distribution

• Electrical: Electrical will be permitted 2 lbs of mass in the nose cone and an additional
2 lbs for avionics. Avionics will be located in the ”Booster+” body tube.

• Payload: Payload will be given 6 lbs to use for the rover and deployment system. This
mass will be placed in the payload tube.

• Recovery: For recovery the subteam is allowed a total of 1.568 lbs of equipment plus
approximately an additional 13 lbs for miscellaneous parts. Of the 1.568 lbs, the main
parachute weighs 0.811 lbs, the drogue parachute weighs 0.134 lbs, and the shock cord
weighs 0.623 lbs. This mass will be located in the recovery tube.

• Propulsion: 4.9 lbs (wet mass) will be dedicated to the booster section of the rocket.

• Airframe: The remaining weight (9.849 lbs) is for the airframe of the rocket. This
weight will be spread among the body tubes, structural elements, and fins of the
rocket.

3.2.3 Length Distribution

• Nose Cone: The rocket will use 24in long fiberglass ogive nose cone made in a 4:1
length to diameter ratio. This space will be made available for payload and electronics
equipment.

• Payload Tube: Payload is permitted an 18in by 6in OD body tube for their rover and
deployment system.

• Transition Piece: The rocket will utilize an 8in transition piece with a fore OD of 6in
and an aft OD of 4in.

– Payload Coupler: The transition piece will have a coupler on the fore end that
extends 3in into the payload tube. Payload will still have access to this space.
– Recovery Coupler: On the aft end of the transition piece will be a 4in coupler
that extends into the recovery tube. This space will still be usable by recovery.

12
 • Recovery Tube: The recovery subteam will have 26in of body tube to store parachutes,
shock cord, and any other equipment that will be needed. This section of the rocket
has an OD of 4in.

• Avionics Bay Tube: Electrical will have a 7in by 4in OD body tube to store the rocket’s
flight computers.

– Avionics Bay Coupler: The coupler between the recovery tube, avionics bay, and
booster tube will be one 15in piece that runs through the entire avionics bay.

• Booster: The booster section of the rocket will be 26in long and will house the motor
tube and centering rings. At the aft end of the booster tube will be a set of three
fiberglass fins to stabilize the rocket in flight.

• Boat Tail: The rocket will have a boat tail that is 4.7in long to reduce drag. The boat
tail will bridge the gap between the 4in body tube and the end of the motor retainer.

3.2.4 Mission Performance Predictions

The projected altitude of the rocket is 5555ft. Although this projection is currently above
the maximum allowed altitude, we predict that some sections of the rocket may ultimately
be heavier than our current prediction. Additionally, ballast can be added to the rocket in
order to increase weight and reduce apogee.
The maximum velocity of the rocket during flight is Mach 0.55. The maximum acceler-
ation is 8.83 Gs, and the motor provides a maximum thrust of 273.59 lbf. Flight simulation
results are illustrated in Figure 1.
The mass of the payload section is projected to be 6 lbs. The mass of the avionics bay is
projected to be approximately 2 lbs. The remainder of the rocket, including the rest of the
airframe, the motor, and the parachutes are projected to weigh approximately 21.125 lbs.
The total weight of the rocket is 27.125 lbs.
The static stability margin is calculated to be 2.41 calibers. The center of pressure is
located 78.2in from the tip of the nose cone, and the center of gravity is located 63.6in from
the tip of the nose cone.

13
 Figure 1: Flight Simulations

Figure 3: The total drift of the rocket with 5 mph wind is approximately 330ft.

14
 Figure 2: The total drift of the rocket with no wind is approximately 9.5ft.

Figure 4: The total drift of the rocket with 10 mph wind is approximately 775ft.

15
Figure 5: The total drift of the rocket with 15 mph wind is approximately 1300ft.

Figure 6: The total drift of the rocket with 20 mph wind is approximately 1750ft.

16
3.3 Requirements

Requirement Verification Plan Status

The vehicle shall deliver the OpenRocket simulations In Progress. OpenRocket
science or engineering pay- and the Perfectflite Stra- simulations have given
load to an apogee altitude tologger CF Altimeter will an apogee estimate that
of 5,280ft above ground verify that the design and matches the requirement
level. an Cesaroni Technology for the motor selected.
L730-P motor meets the Will be verified by further
altitude requirement. computer analysis and test
launch.
The vehicle shall carry A Perfectflite Stratologger Completed. Altimeters
one commercially available, altimeter will be used to have been purchased and
barometric altimeter for record the official attitude. attachment has been deter-
recording the official alti- mined.
tude used in determining
the altitude award winner.
The launch vehicle shall be Structural analysis both in In Progress. Materials have
designed to be recoverable simulation and testing will been selected with this re-
and reusable. Reusable is be performed to make sure quirement in mind. FEA
defined as being able to the vehicle can withstand and physical tests have yet
launch again on the same recovery at descent veloci- to be conducted.
day without repairs or mod- ties.
ifications.
The launch vehicle shall Verified through inspection Completed. STAR’s vehicle
have a maximum of four (4) of design. only has 2 independent sec-
independent sections. An tions (3 counting the rover).
independent section is de-
fined as a section that is ei-
ther tethered to the main
vehicle or is recovered sepa-
rately from the main vehicle
using its own parachute.
The launch vehicle shall be Verified through inspection Completed. STAR’s vehi-
limited to a single stage. of design. cle has one motor and one
stage.
The launch vehicle shall be Assembly and pre-launch Not started.
capable of being prepared checklists will be made to
for flight at the launch make sure preparations
site within 4 hours, from takes within 4 hours.
the time the Federal Avi- Will be verified by test
ation Administration flight launch(s).
waiver opens.

17
 Requirement Verification Plan Status
The launch vehicle shall Verified through inspection Completed. No part of the
be capable of remaining in of design. functionality of our design
launch-ready configuration will be affected by the pass-
at the pad for a minimum ing of 1 hour.
of 1 hour without losing the
functionality of any critical
on-board component.
The launch vehicle shall be Verified through inspection In Progress. The motor se-
capable of being launched of design and test launch. lected is ignitable by stan-
by a standard 12 volt di- dard systems, and no part
rect current firing system. of the design requires any
The firing system will be additional or unique cir-
provided by the NASA- cuitry or equipment.
designated Range Services
Provider.
The launch vehicle shall Verified by inspection of de- Completed. The Cesaroni
use a commercially avail- sign and motor selection. Technology L730-P motor
able solid motor propul- satisfies these requirements.
sion system using ammo-
nium perchlorate composite
propellant (APCP) which
is approved and certified
by the National Associa-
tion of Rocketry (NAR),
Tripoli Rocketry Associa-
tion (TRA), and/or the
Canadian Association of
Rocketry (CAR).
The total impulse provided Verified through inspection Completed. The Aerotech
by a College and/or Univer- of design and motor selec- L1150 motor has an impulse
sity launch vehicle shall not tion. An Aerotech L1150 of 2764 N-s.
exceed 5,120 N-s (L-class). motor will be used.
The launch vehicle shall Will be verified using Open- Completed. STAR’s rocket
have a minimum static sta- Rocket to determine center has a minimum static sta-
bility margin of 2.0 at the of pressure and gravity. bility margin during ascent
point of rail exit. of 2.41, as calculated by
OpenRocket.
The launch vehicle shall ac- Will be verified by test- Completed. STAR’s rocket
celerate to a minimum ve- ing and OpenRocket simu- has a velocity at rail exit of
locity of 52 fps at rail exit. lations of rocket. 82.8 fps off an 8ft rail, as
calculated by OpenRocket.

18
 Requirement Verification Plan Status
All teams shall successfully Will be verified by a test In Progress. The team
launch and recover a sub- launch before the CDR. plans to launch the subscale
scale model of their rocket model at LUNAR on De-
prior to CDR. cember 2nd.
All teams shall successfully Will be verified by a test In Progress. The team
launch and recover their launch. plans to launch the full-
full-scale rocket prior to scale rocket at LUNAR on
FRR in its final flight con- February 3rd.
figuration.
Any structural protuber- Verified through inspection Completed. No protuber-
ance on the rocket shall be of design. ance on the rocket is located
located aft of the burnout aft of the burnout center of
center of gravity. gravity in our design.
Vehicle Prohibitions Verified through inspection Completed. STAR’s rocket
of design. does not utilize any of the
materials or features explic-
itly prohibited in section
1.19 of the NSL Handbook.
The launch vehicle shall not Verified through testing Completed. STAR’s rocket
exceed Mach 1 at any point and OpenRocket simula- reaches a maximum ve-
during flight. tions. locity of Mach 0.55 dur-
ing flight, as calculated by
OpenRocket.

4 Recovery Subsystem
4.1 Component Analyses
4.1.1 Avionics Bay
Description: The avionics bay is a critical component of the recovery subsystem, con-
taining the altimeters necessary to properly deploy the parachute system. The chart below
compares the avionics bay designs up for consideration. All designs relying on two centering
rods unless otherwise specified.

Design Benefits Costs

19
Current: I-Beam
Sled 1. No wheels or rails, which
will simplify the manufacturing 1. Slots may need to be reinforced
process due to wear over time

2. Two rod design preserves struc-

tural integrity of the bay along
the Z-axis

3. Holes in sled allow for easy wire

management

4. Components can be mounted

on either side allowing for the
sled to be compact

Parking Garage
Sleds
1. Few movings parts, so the like- 1. Horizontal doors take up larger
lihood of a mechanism failure is portion of the airframe’s diam-
small eter

2. Small door compromises less of 2. Multiple rails creates more

the the airframe’s aerodynam- sources of failure
ics

Pie Sled

1. All components mounted on 1. Due to a decreased airframe di-

horizontally on a single sled ameter, the selected altimeters
would not fit properly
2. Simple construction

Bookshelf Sled

1. Each component has its own 1. Manufacturing process would

specialized section be difficult due to the small size
of the sled
2. Mounting components own
their side would allow them to 2. Possible complications with
fit closer together, decreasing load force bearing against the
door size. plane of the altimeter

20
 Adjustable Rods

1. Sled is easily removable from 1. Would be difficult to secure

the avionics bay sled from moving during flight

2. Three rods would be required

for optimal strength, increasing
the overall weight of the rocket

Classic Sled

1. Proven to be effective 1. Not easy to access and mission

could be compromised if quick
2. Simple to manufacture access is needed
3. good structural integrity 2. Requires a much larger door
than other designs

3. No easy way to run wires for

the sled components

Final Decision: The I-Beam sled design will be used for the avionics bay. There will be
two one-half in. bulkheads on the top and of the bay. Then, there will be an additional two
one-fourth in. bulkheads glued together mounted within the existing bulkheads, as shown
by Figure 10. These bulkheads will have section removed from them, with their edges cut
at a 45◦ angle in order to create a triangular slot. The I-Beam sled will then slide into these
slots and be held in by the door.
There are several reasons why this design was chosen, the main being ease of access
combined with door size. This design offered the easiest access to the avionics bay with the
smallest door. Cutting into a section of the airframe is not ideal, so the smaller the door, the
more aerodynamic the rocket. In addition, the slot-fit design was the simplest mechanism
that provided the most structural integrity. Since their are no moving parts other than the
sled itself, there are no sources of mechanical failure. The mounting of the components to
the sled is also simplified and streamlined. The batteries and altimeters are mounted via two
screws each, with the batteries held in a 3D printed case. Rather than a complex bracket
system, all components can be removed by just removing two screws. Furthermore, the
hole in the center of the sled allows for the wires to be easily routed, connecting all of the
necessary components. Overall, this design combines several aspects of simplicity, structural
integrity, and accessibility to create the avionics bay most suited for STAR’s mission.

4.1.2 Avionics Bay Door

Design Benefits Costs

21
 Current: Four
Screws 1. Ensures the door will be se-
curely fastened 1. Risk of screws protruding from
airframe, but can be fixed with
2. Ease of manufacturing and re- some shallow countersinking.
pairing
2. Possible leakage of air, but can
be fixed with using a decal to
cover it

Sliding Magnetic
Latch
1. Door locked flush against the 1. Hard to manufacture
airframe causing little to no
drag 2. Difficulty knowing where ex-
actly the slot for the door is
2. Ease of access and can quickly along ring
unlock door
3. The 270 degree ring may
have compromised structural
integrity

4. The material would most likely

be aluminum, which would sig-
nificantly increase the weight

Final Decision: The four-screw sled design was chosen out of a variety of factors. Primar-
ily, this design was more feasible to manufacture and integrate with the rest of the avionics
bay. In particular, this would not require significant increases in mass, which would most
likely be necessary for the ferrous material needed for a magnetic latch. Furthermore, this
would not risk the possibility of having electrical disruptions resulting from the magnets.
4.1.3 Bulkheads
Description: The bulkhead will isolate the avionics bay from the parachute deployment
devices.

22
 Designs Benefits Costs
1. Lightweight 1. Possibility of ply
separation
2. Ease of manufacturing
Plywood [Final Design]
using laser cutters

1. Lightweight 1. Would need to create the

hybrid ourselves
2. A hybrid, incorporating
Fiberglass reinforced the ease of manufacturing
plywood plywood and the durability
of fiberglass

Table 4: Bulkhead Analyses

Final Decision: The bulkheads will consist of six 41 in pieces of plywood epoxied together
to make a total of two 34 in stacks. One piece will be sized to fit tightly in the coupler
while the other will be sized to fit the airframe. This staggered area will allow both bulk-
heads to be comfortably fitted into the ends of the tube of the avionics bay. The efficiency,
cost-effectiveness, and convenience of this option outweigh the engineering benefits of the
fiberglass/wood hybrid. Plywood is more readily accessible and easier to cut with a laser
cutter and miter saw.

4.1.4 Centering Rods

Description: In order to optimize structural integrity, the dual-rod design will be adopted.

Designs Benefits Costs

1. Double the structural 1. Two times as heavy
integrity (each 1/4 in.
diameter)
2. Distribution of stress
Dual Rod [Final Design] 3. Better sled support
1. Allows for rotating 1. Difficult to manufacture
Single Rod altimeter platform
2. Lighter 2. Creates higher stress
point in bulkhead

Table 5: Center Rod Analyses

‘

23
 Final Decision: The dual-rod design will be adopted in order ensure the avionics bay
portion of the airframe is as structurally stable as possible. Each rod will be made out of
aluminum or an aluminum-based alloy, because of the durable properties of aluminum. Each
rod will be a quarter inch in diameter and threaded all the way through. Furthermore, the
rods will be driven through the platform itself, in order to ensure that it doesn’t move during
flight.

4.1.5 Bolts
Description: To provide the maximize strength and stress distribution, U-Bolts will be
used on each bulkhead.

Designs Benefits Costs

1. More durable 1. Requires two holes,
which if not sealed
properly, might increase
risk of air pressure
fluctuations mid-flight
2. Greater stress
distribution as a result of
U-Bolts [Final Design] the two connections to the
bulkhead

1. Lighter 1. Not as strong as the

Eye-Bolts U-Bolt
2. Only need one hole per 2. Most likely thinner than
bulkhead U-bolt

Table 6: Bolts Analyses

Final Decision: In order to distribute the stress and force of thrust during launch, U-
Bolts will be used instead of Eye-Bolts. Attaching a U-Bolt to each bulkhead, positioned
between the two protrusions from the two center rods, would provide for a much more sturdy
avionics bay.

4.1.6 Shock Cords

Description: This is an analysis on the type of shock cord to be used to tether the rocket
and parachutes together.

24
 Designs Benefits Costs
1. Very durable 1. More expensive per
length
2. Can hold high amounts ($4.34 /yard)
Tubular Kevlar [Final of strain
Design] 3. Lighter than strap nylon

Strap Nylon 1. Cheaper per length 1. Not as durable and more

($1.87 /yard) massive

Table 7: Shock Cord Analyses

Final Decision: Tubular kevlar will be used for the shock cord, because it has more
durability and can handle higher amounts of strain relative to the strap nylon. Despite the
higher price, it is worth the increased precaution.

4.2 Deployment System

Summary: The deployment system used for this launch vehicle utilizes a systematic de-
sign of black powder ejection charges, altimeters, and Tender Descenders and focuses on two
critical facets: 1) redundancy and 2) consistency.

To ensure that the launch vehicle will safely land for every launch, the deployment sys-
tem must have redundancy. This is to create the highest probability of success. First and
foremost, we will be using two vials of black powder, rather than one, for the separation
of the rocket during drogue chute deployment. Each would have enough to separate the
rocket on its own, and the rocket is designed to withstand such structural loads. Further-
more, there are two altimeters to ensure the firing of the e-matches at the detection of the
correct barometric reading. The two altimeters will simultaneously and independently read
the barometric data and deploy the black powder ejection charges. These, in turn, are each
powered by their own 9V-Duracell battery. Finally, in order to ensure the success of the
same-side dual deployment procedure, a system of two Tender Descenders in series was de-
veloped. More details are found in Figure 7.

Along with redundancy, consistency is also crucial. This is one of the primary purposes
for flying the following recovery deployment system; because it is a heritage design and has
proved to be 100 percent successful at all of the previous years’ launches.
1. The following orientation will be described in order beginning from the avionics bay
to the transition tube.
2. Altimeters: PerfectFlite StratoLoggerCF
• Dual deployment
• Data storage after power shut-off

25
 • Audible continuity checks
• Relays flight data via a series of beeps
• Tolerant to 2 seconds of power loss during flight
• Resistant to false readings due to wind gusts up to 100mph

3. Two L2 Tender Descenders (TD) linked together in series

(a) Will be designated as TD1 for the TD located closest to the Av-Bay and TD2 for
the TD located after the TD2
(b) Contains two small quick links on each side of the quick link
(c) Will eventually contain an E-Match in each
(d) Contains 0.5 g of Black Powder in each

4. Shock Cords

(a) Use one very long length of 41 in tubular kevlar shock cord, knotted at various
distances and attached with quicklinks.
(b) BAY-to-MAIN (B2M): This is the shock cord length between QL1, which is at-
tached to the Av-Bay, and the main chute. This is stored as a closed loop and
will not be extended until after the Tender Descender Charges are released. Its
length is 48.75ft
(c) MAIN-to-DROGUE (M2D): This refers to the length of shock cord between the
Main Chute and the Drogue Chute. It is pulled out during the first Av-Bay and
Transition section separation stage when the drogue chute catches air. Its length
is 24.58ft
(d) DROGUE-to-TRANSITION (D2T): This refers to the length of shock cord be-
tween the Drogue Chute and QL3, which is directly attached to the Transition
section of the rocket. Like the M2B, it is also pulled out during the first two stage
separation. Its length is 12.00ft

5. Quicklinks

(a) QL1 - the one closest to the avionics bay; is connected to the following: 1) U-Bolt
connected to Av-Bay, 2) Stingray Main Chute Bag, 3) B2M, 4) TD1
(b) QL2 - the one connected to the main chute; connected to the following: 1) TD2,
2) Shock Cord to QL1, 3) Main Chute, 4) M2D
(c) QL3 - the one connected to the drogue chute; connected to the following: 1) M2D,
2) Drogue chute, 3), D2T
(d) QL4 - the one connected to the Transition; connected to the following: 1) D2T,
2) U-Bolt on the Transition Section Bulkhead

6. Parachutes

26
 (a) Drogue Chute: 24in Elliptical parachute from Fruity Chutes; the red and white
one, Coefficient of Drag - 1.5
(b) Main Chute: 72in Toroidal parachute from Fruity Chutes; the orange and black
one, Coefficient of Drag - 2.2

7. Parachute Bag

(a) Stingray: beige/off-white Kevlar bag with a custom fit pocket to protect the main
chute during the black powder ejection charges. This is connected to QL1. The
main chute is going to be pulled out of the Stingray when the Tender Descenders
release the charges.

8. Parachute Blankets

(a) Drogue Chute Blanket: Orange blanket that will cover the wrapped drogue chute
(b) Complete Chute Blanket: Olive-green/gray blanket that will cover the stingray,
drogue chute blanket, both tender descenders, and all shock cords excluding the
D2T

4.3 Drawings and Schematics

Drawings and schematics of the electrical and structural assemblies can be found below:

Figure 7: Dual Deployment Orientation

27
Figure 8: Avionics Bay External Isometric View

28
Figure 9: Avionics Bay External View with Open Door

29
Figure 10: Avionics Bay Internal Altimeters
30
Figure 11: Avionics Bay Internal Batteries

31
4.4 Black Powder Calculations
To deploy the parachutes two altimeters will be used. The main altimeter is the Per-
fectflite Stratologger CF Altimeter, which is capable of deploying both the drogue and main
chute. It will ignite an electronic match, which will then ignite black powder. The black
powder will break the shear pins that hold the sections together and release the drogue
parachute. The code written to calculate this number can be found in the Appendix. Two
4-40 shear pins will be used. The inputs into the program are 2 shear pins, a shear force of
40 lbs, an internal length of 14.75in, and a multiplication factor of 2. This yields a black
powder quantity of 1.2180 grams to deploy the drogue chute. The Tender Descenders used
to deploy the main chute will each contain 0.5 grams of black powder.

4.5 Kinetic Energy Calculations

A Matlab program was written and used to perform drag force, terminal velocity, and
kinetic energy calculations for the descent of the rocket. During parachute deployment, the
rocket splits into two parts. The upper part has a weight of 11.12 lbs, the lower part has a
weight of 10.61 lbs, and the parachutes have a weight of 2.04 lbs. The drogue parachute has
a diameter of 24 in and a drag coefficient of 1.5, and the main parachute has a diameter or
72 in and a drag coefficient of 2.2. Using these numbers, it was calculated the rocket would
descend with a terminal velocity of 17.29 ft/s. The final energy for the upper part of the
rocket would be 51.63 ft-lbf, and the final energy for the lower part of the rocket would be
49.27 ft-lbf. This is significantly lower than the maximum allowed energy of 75 ft-lbf, so
descent using these parachutes should be safe. The code used can be found in the appendix.

4.5.1 Flight Plan

The flight plan for the rocket can be seen in Figure 12.

Phase Event
1 Ignition.
2 Powered flight.
3 Coasting.
4 Drogue parachute deployed at an apogee of 5567ft. AGL.
5 Main parachute deployed at an altitude of 1000ft. AGL.
6 Launch vehicle descends under main and drogue chute.
7 All sections of the rocket land with a KE under 75 ft-lbf. The
rover is deployed.

32
Figure 12: Phases of Flight
path.png path.png

33
4.6 Rocket Locating Transmitters
The GPS system used to the track the avionics bay and booster is the TeleGPS Module,
which operates at a unique frequency. This GPS has a clear-air operating range of 8,000ft,
which is well over the maximum drift limit. The GPS has 10mW RF power. This GPS has
been found to be fairly reliable during testing. The GPS will be housed in the nosecone
portion of the rocket to ensure no potential interference of electronics within the avionics
bay.

5 Safety
5.1 Responsibilities
The Safety Officer for CalSTAR is Grant Posner. The Safety Officer’s responsibilities
include:

• Ensuring that construction is carried out safely. In particular, the Safety Officer will
maintain MSDS documentation for various chemicals and materials that team members
may be working with, will ensure that the relevant team members understand the risks
and procedures involved in these materials, will identify construction risks, and will
design and implement procedures for minimizing these risks.

• Ensuring that all tests and launches abide by relevant codes and regulations. In par-
ticular, the Safety Officer will design and implement procedures to abide by the NAR
High Power Rocket Safety Code; NFPA 1127; FAR 14 CFR, Subchapter F, Part 101,
Subpart C; and CFR 27 Part 55; and verify team compliance through observation,
instruction, and team agreement to the Appendix B. Furthermore, the Safety Officer
will ensure compliance with all relevant local codes and regulations, and compliance
of every team member with the commands of the Range Safety Officer at any launch
site.

• Maintaining hazard analyses, team procedures, and safety protocols.

• Conducting pre-launch briefings and hazard recognition and accident avoidance brief-
ings.

The utmost concern of the entire team during all team operations is safety. The primary
duties and responsibilities of the Safety Officer and the members of the Safety Team are
therefore intended to maximize team safety and minimize hazards and risks.

5.2 Personnel Hazards Analysis

The CalSTAR safety subteam does not envision any major safety issues with any of the
team personnel. Certainly the risks below may occur, but we expect that proper training
and safety reviews will mitigate all of the risks and allow for safe construction, assembly, and
launch of the sub-scale and full-scale rockets. All construction will be carried out only by

34
experienced and university-trained team members, and our mentor or other certified adults
will handle hazardous materials whenever possible. Thus we expect team members to be
exposed to a minimal number of possible hazards.
Furthermore, the team has MSDS documents available online at the team website for
team members to read and use, and will have these MSDS documents in hard copy at our
Richmond Field Station space, along with summarized team procedures. We have MSDS for
the more hazardous materials we will be working with, and encourage all team members to
understand the documents fully. We do not have operating manuals for machinery on our
team website, but all team members who construct using university machinery (such as in
the Etcheverry machine shop or in the Jacobs Hall MakerSpaces) must complete stringent
university training, which cover topics such as proper operating and handling of machinery
and all safety protocols. Jacobs Hall does have operating manuals online, and all team
members who use the equipment in Jacobs Hall should be familiar with these manuals.
Finally, the Safety subteam has purchased PPE for team members’ use, and requires the
use of such PPE at all build events: any team members who do not use proper PPE will not
be allowed to help with rocket construction, to maintain proper safety protocols.
The table below depicts the categorization method that is used throughout all the failure
modes and analysis sections.

Figure 13: Risk Assessment Matrix

Severity
Risk Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Inadvertent Possibility of major injury E2 The motor will be installed only
launch before to team members or by- when required, and the launch
rocket is at launch standers from physical con- system will be armed only when
pad and site is tact with the rocket or its the rocket is at the launch pad.
clear exhaust There will be minimal time be-
tween the rocket being ready to
launch and the launch itself.

35
 Severity
Risk Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Unstable rocket Possibility of major injury E2 The launch vehicle will have an
path off the to team members or by- acceptable stability and all ap-
launch rail standers from physical con- propriate safety checklists will
tact with the rocket or its be followed while loading the ve-
exhaust hicle onto the launch rail to al-
low for most stable flight out-
come. All nearby personnel
will be attentive of occurring
launches.
Rocket compo- Possibility of major injury E3 All components of the rocket
nents falling with- to team members or by- will be secured properly and
out a parachute standers from being hit parachute connections will be se-
with the free falling object. cure. This will be verified be-
fore launch during a pre-launch
checklist. All nearby person-
nel will be attentive of occurring
launches and descents.
Injury during Personnel experiences in- D2 Make nearby personnel aware of
ground testing jury such as burns or dangers prior to ground testing.
trauma after being hit with Personnel cannot stand in line
part of the launch vehicle with the rocket but instead must
stand at least 10ft perpendicu-
larly away from the long axis
of the rocket body. The team
member conducting the ground
test will clearly and loudly an-
nounce the countdown.
Improper use of Damage or wear to equip- D2 Workshop training is always
machining tools ment, minor personal in- required before personnel are
jury; possibly major dam- allowed to use machines and
age to construction compo- equipment for construction. UC
nents. Berkeley machine shops only ad-
mit personnel once training and
a test are completed.

36
 Severity
Risk Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Touching a hot Minor personal injury to C3 Electronics team members
soldering iron due localized burns should be particularly careful
around any soldering iron, and
all soldering irons should always
be assumed to be on and hot
unless directly verified other-
wise. Team members should
never touch any part other than
the handle of a soldering iron.
Improper han- Explosion or fire, personal C2 Experienced team member-
dling of hazardous injury (burns, loss of eye- s/team mentor should supervise
materials or sight, cuts, etc.); possible all handling of hazardous ma-
chemicals damage to rocket compo- terials, or the team mentor
nents. should handle materials himself.
Also, use of Personal Protective
Equipment and applying lab
safety standards can help:
wearing safety goggles, lab
coats, closed-toed shoes, having
minimal exposed skin, wearing
gloves, etc.
Exposure to haz- Skin, eye, and/or respira- C2 Clothing that covers the arms,
ardous materials tory irritation; coughing or, along with safety goggles and
or chemicals (in in severe cases, lung dam- either a respirator or a dusk
particular fiber- age and reduced respiratory mask, should be worn when ma-
glass, epoxy, spray capability chining materials that may re-
paints) lease dust or fibers into the
air, and if possible work should
be done outside or in an oth-
erwise ventilated area (espe-
cially when spray-painting com-
ponents). MSDS for particu-
lar materials have more infor-
mation, which team members
should be aware of before con-
struction.

37
 Severity
Risk Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Electric shock Tingling, minor muscle con- B2 Batteries will not be installed
while working tractions except when testing or launch
with electronic requires their installation.
components Rubber-encased wires primarily
should be used in construction.
Before touching bare wires,
team members should ensure
that batteries or power sources
are disconnected.
LiPo battery ex- The explosion of the bat- C3 Personnel working with the LiPo
plosion tery could cause damage to batteries will use appropriate
personnel working nearby chargers that do not continue
the electronics and could applying voltage once the bat-
cause damage to nearby tery is fully charged.
hardware.
Finger pinched by Hand injury to personnel C1 Before operating the scissor lift,
the Ejection scis- due to the mechanism. a safety check must be per-
sor lift formed to ensure all personnel
are clear of the mechanism.
Compressed air Unexpected actuation of B1 Wear required PPEs. Nearby
solenoid may cause damage personnel will be made aware of
to internal equipment and the hazard and told to keep their
nearby personnel. hand away from the stroke of the
piston.

5.3 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

This is not a comprehensive list of failure modes, but the safety team expects that these
failure modes are the most likely and problematic and have therefore considered how to
address these issues in particular.
We have separated the failure modes analyses into multiple sections, each particular to
one subteam.
Airframe Failures Modes
Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood

38
Rocket al- Inaccuracy of Significant loss of E3 Use OpenRocket to ensure
titude does OpenRocket points vehicle will reach range at a
not reach model; weather variety of given wind condi-
desired range conditions at tions; verify accuracy of cal-
of 5280ft launch culations with hand calcu-
lations and results of sub-
scale and full scale launch
Recovery Sys- Inadequate setup Extreme hazard D2 Have thorough pre-launch
tem does not during launch to bystanders; and launch checklists; prac-
deploy extreme risk of tice during sub-scale and
damage to rocket full scale launches
Motor failure Motor fails to ig- Rocket will not D3 Double check out igniter;
nite; faulty motor; take off research company and mo-
improper stor- tor for any faulty motors;
age/installation of use manufacturer’s instruc-
motor tion to properly store motor
Rocket Thrust to weight Loss of height C2 Perform a series of test
becomes ratio does not that determine the condi-
unstable meet minimum tions the rocket might be
requirements to exposed to during flight to
stabilize against ensure stability
wind speed
Frame be- Severe impact or Instability during D2 Perform structural analy-
comes com- other external flight; failure to sis on material to ensure
promised forces meet ready-to-fly that structural integrity is
condition after not severely affected during
landing flight; ensure all parts of
rockets are intact and free
of any imperfections that
might occur during ship-
ment

39
Motor tube Weak adhesive Complete loss E1 Take extra care to ensure
failure during bonds between of flight vehicle; epoxy is affixed to center-
flight motor tube, cen- likely payload ing rings, as well as check-
tering rings, and damage ing that centering rings are
body tube properly attached to the
body tube; double check
that motor tube is not dam-
aged before constructing;
use styrofoam to fill space
between motor mount and
body tube to absorb tor-
sional forces
Launch rail Improper setup Launch vehicle D1 Use structural analysis and
fails to main- launches at an ensure launch rail is con-
tain vertical angle, potential structed properly; check se-
danger posed to curity of fasteners and com-
life and property ponents
Coupler fail- Weak fit between Loss of stability E2 Inspect rocket components
ure coupler and body and structural thoroughly before launch;
section; weak ad- integrity; hazard ensure sections are properly
hesive bond with to people on the fitted together
frame ground; com-
promise internal
systems
Minor nose Improper han- Poor aerodynamic C2 The rocket will be handled
cone fracture dling or landing flow and possible with care in transit, con-
trajectory devia- struction, and minor de-
tion fects will be patched with
epoxy filler.
Major nose Severe mishan- Mission failure D1 Small-scale static testing
cone fracture dling or failed will help mitigate accidents
parachute deploy- resulting in such a failure.
ment In the case of major dam-
age, a replacement can be
salvaged or purchased.
Minor fin Improper han- Poor aerodynamic D3 The fin roots will be rein-
damage dling or landing; flow and guaran- forced with fiber compos-
fin flutter during teed trajectory de- ite fillets and the fin section
flight viation will be stored in an upright
position as often as possible
to keep stress on the fins to
a minimum.

40
Major fin Severe mishan- Compromised D2 In the case of major fin
damage dling or failed aerodynamics and damage, it may be possi-
landing rocket tumbling ble for the fin to be re-
placed. In severe situations,
the booster section of the
rocket may need to be re-
built.
Failed Failure to break Mission failure D1 Extensive testing will be
parachute the shear pins done to simulate separation
deployment or the tolerances during flight and couplers
between the body will be sanded for smooth
tube and coupler and easy deployment.
are excessively
tight

Recovery Failures Modes

Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Drogue Rocket trav- Altimeters fail to E3 Use of two, redundant al-
parachute els at too high recognize air pres- timeters; perform several
fails to de- of speed when sure change, caus- ground tests to be sure
ploy main parachute ing the black pow- that charges will deploy
is deployed, po- der charges to not parachutes.
tentially severely fire
damaging the
rocket
Main Rocket lands at Altimeters fail to E3 Use of two, redundant al-
parachute kinetic energy recognize air pres- timeters; perform several
fails to de- higher than 75 sure change, caus- ground tests to be sure
ploy ft-lbf, damaging ing the black pow- that charges will deploy
the rocket and po- der charges to not parachutes.
tentially injuring fire; Tender L2
bystanders Descender fails

41
 Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Altimeters Parachutes either Forgetting to turn E3 Use new 9V Duracell bat-
shut off dur- deploy too early or on altimeters be- teries, check batteries be-
ing flight, not at all, dam- fore flight; batter- fore flight, and tightly se-
causing de- aging the rocket ies run out cure all power supplies be-
ployment and potentially in- fore flight.
system to juring bystanders
malfunction
Parachutes Rocket is not Black powder de- E2 Properly wrap parachutes
melt ready for launch ployment charges in heat blankets.
after landing; explode, creating
rocket potentially too much heat
lands at kinetic inside parachute
energy higher chamber
than 75 ft-lbf,
damaging the
rocket and po-
tentially injuring
bystanders
Deployment Rocket is either Black powder was E2 Perform several ground
charges are damaged from not accurately al- tests to be sure that charges
not sized too large of ejec- located for each will deploy parachutes.
properly tion charge or charge region
parachutes are
not deployed
from too small of
ejection charge
Shock cords Sections of Minor cut to be- E1 Perform force analysis and
snap at the rocket de- gin with; force of tensile test on shock cords.
deployment scend without rocket is too much
parachute, dam- to hold for kevlar
aging the rocket shock cords
and potentially in-
juring bystanders
Black powder Potential damage Bulkhead of C2 Make sure avionics bay is
residue enters to electronic de- avionics bay not completely sealed off from
avionics bay vices; heavy clean- secure/airtight ejection charges using rub-
ing needed after enough ber gaskets.
flight

42
 Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Recycled Wear from use in Rocket may D1 Carefully verify the launch
component previous launches impact ground integrity of all recycled
fails with higher than components, particularly
allowed kinetic parachutes: check for any
energy due to tears or holes, verify that
parachute failure. parachute lines are still
properly wound and have
maintained tensile strength,
and ensure (through test-
ing) that any recycled
parachute maintains its
airtight qualities.

Avionics Bay Door Locking System Failures Modes

Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Magnetic Using magnets Electronics mal- 3D Put warning signs on mag-
disruption of while electronic function causing a nets. Isolate magnets from
electronics systems are ac- delay in launch. electronics until it is con-
(detected tive. firmed that electronics are
pre-launch) off.
Magnetic Using magnets Electronics mal- 2D Same mitigations as above
disruption while electronic function which with the addition of doing
of electron- systems are active could deploy electronic tests pre-launch.
ics (de- and not test- parachutes too
tected during ing the systems early or not at all.
launch) pre-launch The rocket could
sustain dam-
age and injure
bystanders.

43
 Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Rails holding Rails are not ad- Door will be 2D If screws are used, make
locking metal equately attached compromised. sure the rail is securely
bars fall off. to the interior wall Electronic sys- bolted onto the wall. If ad-
of the avionics bay tems malfunction, hesives are used, make sure
and parachutes the adhesives are applied
will either open thoroughly on the surface of
too early or not the rails and placed firmly
at all. The rocket on the wall.
could sustain
damage and
injure bystanders.
Battery or Battery/altimeter Wires may sever 2D Secure the electronics as
altimeters fall is not securely and electronic tightly as possible with
out of slides bolted into slide. systems may bolts and screws.
malfunction. The
rocket could sus-
tain damage and
injure bystanders

Electronics Failures Modes

Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Connection Launch trauma, Payload will fail to E4 Minimize push-pull connec-
failures failure to properly eject and deploy. tions. Use PCB in place
between test electronics of breadboard. Ensure sol-
electronic dered joints are solid. En-
components sure wire lengths are appro-
priate (not taut).
Batteries are Not double- Payload will never E3 Pre-flight testing before
too low checking batteries eject and deploy setup and on launchpad.
before launch, Include enough battery
and not putting power to last two hours.
enough battery Have full replacement
power in the batteries available.
rocket

44
 Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Altimeter Launch trauma, If payload does E3 Include comprehensive test-
failure or failure to properly not detect targets, ing process in launch pro-
miscalibra- test electronics on the payload will cedure. Secure altimeter
tion launchpad not eject or de- to payload, and ensure con-
ploy. nections are solid.
Accelerometer Launch trauma, Payload data will A3 Include comprehensive test-
failure or mis- failure to properly be incorrect. ing process in launch proce-
calibration test electronics dure. Secure accelerometer
to payload, and ensure con-
nections are solid.
Gyroscope Launch trauma, Payload data will A3 Include comprehensive test-
failure or mis- failure to properly be incorrect. ing in launch procedure.
calibration test electronics Solidly secure gyroscope to
payload body.

Due to the complexity of the rover payload, the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of the
payload system is separated into multiple phases of the system: deployment of the payload
portion from the primary body of the rocket, ejection of the rover from the payload section
of the air frame, movement of the rover, and deployment of the solar panels.

• Overall Payload Failure Modes

– Battery Power Management

∗ Causes: A lack of proper battery sizing may cause batteries to run out of
power before launch. Some batteries are not built to be able to withstand
high acceleration.
∗ Effects: All electronic components, including avionics, radio trigger, deploy-
ment solenoids, and ejection servos, are not powered on launch.
∗ Mitigation: Make sure battery has enough amperage/capacity for tests and
for one-h standby, and additionally use known battery types and brands,
namely Duracell, that are known to withstand launch forces. Use external
switches so that electronic systems can be turned on when on the pad.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: E1

• Deployment of the Payload

– Deployment Timing
∗ Causes: Programming errors, sensor failure, or radio failure.

45
 ∗ Effects: The payload may deploy too early or too late. This type of deploy-
ment can affect the trajectory of the rocket, influence future rover actions,
result in the rover failing to eject, or possible damage to equipment and by-
standers.
∗ Mitigation: Design of deployment systems will be mitigated through redun-
dant systems for verification of deployment conditions. Namely, the combi-
nation of a accelerometer and an altimeter will verify that the payload has
landed before deployment is initiated.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: E1
– Break-Wire Disconnecting Early
∗ Causes: Insufficient friction in the connector at the break point.
∗ Effects: The payload will not deploy.
∗ Mitigation: Use a connector that has sufficient friction to not disconnect from
normal vibration and shock. Design the rocket assembly in such a way that
assembly will force the connector together.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: C2
– Failure of CO2 Pressure Vessel
∗ Causes: The difference between high pressures in the air canisters and the
atmospheric pressure increases due to ascent of the rocket, acceleration, or
other effects.
∗ Effects: The carbon dioxide pressure vessel could undergo unplanned depres-
surization. Deployment would fail to occur, leading to a payload experiment
failure.
∗ Mitigation: The CO2 pressure vessels will be chosen for similarity to flight
heritage pressure vessels with similar purposes, and will be tested on subscale
launch.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: E1
– Displaced Tubing
∗ Causes: Due to the turbulence of launch, tubes leading into the air tank may
be disconnected, jammed, or torn.
∗ Effects: Any sort of disturbance to the tubing of the deployment system may
lead to the loss of air pressure. Deployment would fail to occur, leading to a
payload experiment failure.
∗ Mitigation: Tubing will be securely fastened and routed, and all connections
will be thoroughly sealed and tested multiple times prior to launch.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: C2
– Insufficient Clearance for Rover Ejection
∗ Causes: The separation of the transition section and the payload portion of
the rocket is insufficient due to insufficient forces acting on the airframe.
∗ Effects: The main airframe of the rocket could interfere with the ejection of
the rover from the rocket.

46
 ∗ Mitigation: The deployment system will be sized and tested to reduce the
likelihood of insufficient clearance.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D1
– Pneumatics-Induced Rover Failure
∗ Causes: 120lb+ force may be experienced by the rover during deployment by
the pneumatic deployment system.
∗ Effects: Such force may destroy the finer mechanisms of the rover and render
it inoperable.
∗ Mitigation: Rover system design will include a factor of safety and be reviewed
prior to manufacturing through finite element analysis. Additionally, analysis
and proof testing will be conducted to reduce the chance of failure.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D3

• Ejection of the Rover

– Ejection binding
∗ Causes: Part of rover binds on the inside of the payload section and does not
fully exit the airframe.
∗ Effects: The rover may not be able to move, or it may sense that it has been
deployed and start its movement prematurely.
∗ Mitigation: The ejection mechanism will reduce the risk of binding by design
and will be tested multiple times to ensure the rover is fully ejected from the
payload section.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: B3
– Scissor lift shearing
∗ Causes: Turbulent forces during launch may exert too much pressure on the
scissor lift mechanism.
∗ Effects: The rover fails to eject.
∗ Mitigation: The scissor lift will be properly reinforced and structured to
endure the stress of launch.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D2
– Scissor lift unable to eject rover
∗ Causes: The scissor lift does not generate enough force to eject the rover.
∗ Effects: The rover is not ejected.
∗ Mitigation: The scissor lift will undergo FEA and significant lab testing prior
to flight.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: C3
– Friction-derived rover ejection failure
∗ Causes: The friction between the wheel and the interior airframe is too strong
for the ejection mechanism.

47
 ∗ Effects: The rover fails to eject fully from the payload.
∗ Mitigation: The scissor lift will be designed to produce more force than is
necessary to eject the rover. Additionally, a friction-reducing thin sheet will
be placed between the wheels and the airframe to reduce friction between the
wheel-airframe interface.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: C2
– Scissor lift failure
∗ Causes: Too much force on the bottom links of the scissor lift.
∗ Results: The bottom links can snap or break off and prevent the ejection
mechanism from working at all.
∗ Mitigation: The scissor lift will be designed with an additional margin of
safety to account for unexpected forces encountered by the lift.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D3

• Movement of the Rover

– Failed collision detection

∗ Causes: Sensors do not recognize a divot, hill, or anything abnormal not
planned for in code. Rover does not move perfectly smoothly
∗ Results: Rover is unable to detect obstacles in front of it, may cause rover to
be impeded
∗ Mitigation: Sensors will be repeatedly tested and are programmed around
possible issues in order to reduce their impact during the competition. Ad-
ditionally, wheels will be designed to move over rugged terrain.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: B3
– Wheel tears/deformations during movement
∗ Causes: A sharp object or edge comes into contact with moving wheels.
∗ Results: Wheels are uneven and movement is affected.
∗ Mitigation: The wheels will be made out of a material that is not easily torn
and will be relatively wide in order to mitigate any damage during movement.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: C3
– Wheels do not have sufficient torque for terrain
∗ Causes: The site may have varied terrain, fine loose dirt, or mud due to rain.
Other slippage can arise from disjointed contact between the axles and the
wheels or motors not geared for appropriate torque.
∗ Results: Rover has a difficult time moving and may especially struggle with
obstacles. Minimum distance of 5ft possibly not achieved.
∗ Mitigation: Tests will be conducted on a wide variety of terrains, including
mud, and motors will be oversized to provide a buffer.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D2

48
 – Axle failure
∗ Causes: Repeated use, weak axles, axles moving on one side and not the other
∗ Results: Wheels do not move effectively, unlikely to move in the expected
way.
∗ Mitigation: Axles will be designed with a margin of safety and an FEA will
be conducted.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D3
– Skid preventing movement
∗ Causes: Skid gets caught on unusually steep and abnormal terrain.
∗ Results: Rover is unable to move well or at all.
∗ Mitigation: The type of terrain that would cause this issue is unlikely to be
present at site.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D2
– Skid fails to deploy
∗ Causes: Servos fails to work or the skid gets caught on an obstacle during its
deployment.
∗ Results: The rover may have difficulty climbing hills or approaching uneven
ground not perpendicular to rover movement. Additionally, rover orientation
might be affected.
∗ Mitigation: Test skid deployment multiple times and have two separate servos
so there is a backup if one fails.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D3
– Rover begins movement early
∗ Causes: Sliding of the rover within the airframe may cause the rover to
mistakenly think that it has been ejected and begin to move.
∗ Results: Rover could be misaligned during ejection or affect trajectory of
rocket.
∗ Mitigation: Deployment mechanism makes sure the rover is secured prior
to deployment. Additionally, redundant sensors (physical, light) ensure that
movement happens at the proper time.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D1
– Battery disconnects
∗ Causes: The battery or other electronics are jostled during previous phases.
∗ Results: The rover is unable to move or complete the objective.
∗ Mitigation: Ensure that all connections are secure and can sustain movement
during tests and practice launches. Design will reduce risk of disconnection
by reinforcing connection points and using latching connectors.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: E2

• Deployment of the Solar Panels

49
 – Panels are damaged
∗ Causes: Panels are damaged and/or detached during previous phases.
∗ Results: The objective is not completed.
∗ The current design protects the solar panels from the environment when not
deployed.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D2
– Panel deployment fails
∗ Causes: The servos lock up, the movement is obstructed somehow, or the
servos are not applying enough power can all cause mechanical failures. Ad-
ditionally, the panels may not recognize the correct time to unfold due to
issues with the sensors.
∗ Results: The panels are not deployed at the right time.
∗ Mitigation: Mitigated by design.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: D2
– Solar Panels open before the 5ft minimum distance
∗ Causes: Vibration during rocket flight and rover travel lead to the solar panels
opening prematurely.
∗ Results: Following the scoring guidelines, the 5ft minimum distance will not
have been achieved.
∗ Mitigation: Magnets will be used as a redundant latch to keep the panels
closed. Only once 5ft has been achieved will the magnets be released and the
solar panels allowed to unfold.
∗ Likelihood/Severity Rating: B3

Launch Operations Risks

Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Altimeters Incorrect wiring, Black powder E2 Test altimeter setup before
are not set up incorrect mode detonation be- launch and verify correct
correctly set on altime- fore launch, or wiring and altimeter mode.
ter, incorrect failure of pay-
calibration load ejection
and parachute
deployment
Motor does Improper instal- Failure to launch B3 Per the NAR High Power
not ignite lation of igniter, the rocket, injury Rocket Safety Code, re-
slow burn, electri- to nearby person- move the launcher’s safety
cal delay nel if motor ignites interlock and then wait 60
after a delay seconds after a motor mis-
fire before approaching the
50
rocket.
 Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Improper Misalignment Launch rail nega- C2 Visually inspect the launch
installation of launch rail tively affects flight rail and rocket rail buttons
of rocket on buttons, launch path of rocket and verify that there are no
launch rail rail is bent or not burrs, bumps, bends, etc.
smooth
Premature Altimeter gives Possible injury D2 Verify several times that
black powder false reading due to nearby per- all altimeters have correct
detonation to improper setup sonnel, possible settings and are correctly
damage to rocket wired.
components
Couplers are Couplers were Rocket may come C3 Verify that couplers are
loose not machined apart on the tight enough by lifting the
correctly to speci- launch rail or in rocket and ensuring that no
fications flight part falls off the bottom. If
couplers are loose, then add
tape around the coupler.
Payload Air- Personnel stand- Personnel may be B1 Prior to separation event,
frame Separa- ing too close to hit with either end make all nearby personnel
tion Event the airframe dur- of the launch vehi- aware of upcoming event
ing the separation cle and experience and maintain a radius of
event. personal injury. 20ft.

5.4 Environmental Risks Analysis

Overview:

STAR’s safety team will prepare and observe all environmental and safety issues. These
guidelines will be followed completely throughout all tests and deployments, including any
competitions. All team members will be instructed on these procedures and be required to
sign off that they understand and will comply with these safety procedures. Monitoring of
compliance will be performed and documented by the safety team.

Safety Issues:

Any procedures that involve chemicals, explosive devices, electricity, waste or runoff,
shall be contained to all local, university, state, federal and national rocketry and contest
regulations. This includes the expectation of failure of any rocket component relating to
liquids, solids, devices, or any exhaust or by-products of any part of the experiments. As such,
this contemplates containing any negative impacts with barriers, shields, liquid containment,

51
and exhaust containment. In addition, site preparation and post-experiment cleanup and
waste issues will be contained.

Environmental Issues:

The following are the contemplated areas of environmental concern:

• Shore/water hazard

• Soil impact (chemical changes)

• Air impact (unwanted gas emission)

• Waste disposal

• Drainage/runoff

• Fire/explosion

Monitoring:

The safety team will monitor these concerns at all tests and deployments. This includes
monitoring and gathering all sensor, blast, and payload data for the launch and comparing
it to expected values.

Documentation:

The safety team shall document these procedures are followed at all tests and deploy-
ments. In addition, we will record the complete deployment of any launch in order to
document the success or failure of any and all procedures and activities connected to the
launch and to enable a post-mortem after the launch if necessary.

Specific Concerns:

• Rocket motors: While we do not know the exact contents of the rocket motor that
we plan to use, solid rocket motors are likely to give off harmful gases, such as: hy-
drogen chloride (HCl), alumina particle (Al2O3), Chloro-fluoro-carbons (CFCs) and
chlorine gas (Cl(g)). Although Level 2 rockets aren’t comparable in emissions to (sub-
orbital) rockets, they still have an impact on the local environment and the deployment
envelope.

• Launch area: Before doing any rocket launch, it is critical to inspect the site of launch
for potential fire risks, ecological environments and nearby water sources. Rocket
launches can damage local ecological environments by affecting soil quality, and local
ecosystems.
A site survey should be performed to note any nearby areas that may be impacted
by the launch, such as any water, streams, or lakes, as well as flammable structures

52
 or objects, such as buildings, bushes, or trees. It is devastating to the ecosystem
of a water environment to expose it to such inorganic chemicals. It may destroy
chemical properties of the water as well as affecting the rest of the water surroundings.
Such ecosystems including any organisms and microorganisms will be affected by the
contaminants.
There also should be an animal impact assessment to consider any negative impacts to
animals in the blast or deployment area. (The launch site shall not be near any animal
habitats.)

• Electrical systems and batteries: The performance characteristics of any electrical

systems, including batteries shall be documented, per their manufacturers, in order
to contain any malfunction. In addition, any electrical systems should be protected
against human contact, even in a malfunction. Any chemical runoff from a malfunction
of an electric system will have serious negative impacts to the local environment. The
chemical runoff shall be immediately picked up and contained, and disposed of in an
appropriate waste bin.

• Hazardous disposal: Any identified hazardous parts, needs to be picked up, con-
tained, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and safety considerations.
This includes any chemicals typically used to construct the rocket, such as glues or
resins. This also includes any malfunctioning parts, or parts that may have exploded.
This also includes any used or malfunctioning rocket engines, chemicals and batteries.
Rocket engines shall be neutralized chemically, per manufacturers instructions, before
being bagged.

• Waste disposal: All other non-hazardous waste from the launch area shall be ac-
cumulated and disposed of appropriately so that the launch area is completely clean
after the launch.

5.5 Project Risks and Consequences Analysis

This section contains logistical risks (typically money and time, rather than mechanical
failure of devices).
Payload Risks

Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood

53
 Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Construction 3D printing Does not affect C4 Ensure strict schedule is
of payload failure, purchas- subscale launch, laid out for payload con-
falls behind ing parts from will use weight struction, designs are com-
schedule slow/unreliable substitute in place pleted and checked, and
vendor, building of unobtained vendors are chosen care-
backup payload, parts. fully.
reprinting parts,
lack of materi-
als, lack of clear
schematics, lack
of effort.
Payload goes Reprinting parts, Does not affect C4 Make sure costs are con-
over budget purchasing special subscale launch, sidered while designing the
parts/backup will use weight payload, and keep a large
parts, building substitute in place discretionary fund in case of
backup payload, of unobtained emergency.
lack of budget parts.
planning.

Recovery Risks

Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Recovery Lack of materi- Will prevent suc- C1 Make sure a strict sched-
construction als; Lack of ef- cessful subscale ule is laid out and that de-
falls behind fort; Lack of clear launch as recovery sign is complete. Also make
schedule schematics is responsible for sure to buy materials early
separation and so that shipping is not an
landing issue.
Recovery Parts too expen- Critical, as re- D1 Make sure costs are consid-
goes over sive or too many covery has one of ered while designing. Reuse
budget mistakes and re- the highest costs as many components as
dos required for parachutes possible from previous team
and charges. May rockets. Use substitutes as
prevent teams necessary, and exercise ex-
from buying treme caution or extreme
other necessary caution while testing, and
components keep a large discretionary
fund in case of emergency.

54
 Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood

Airframe Risks
Severity
Risk Causes Effects & Likeli- Mitigations
hood
Airframe con- Lack of materi- Will prevent suc- C1 Make sure a strict sched-
struction falls als; Lack of ef- cessful subscale ule is laid out and that de-
behind sched- fort; Lack of clear launch as airframe sign is complete. Also make
ule schematics makes up the sure to buy materials early
rocket. so that shipping is not an
issue.
Airframe goes Parts too expen- Blue tube is de- C2 Make sure costs are consid-
over budget sive or too many cently expensive, ered while designing and ei-
mistakes and re- and carbon fiber ther use substitutes or ex-
dos required components are treme caution while test-
difficult to man- ing, and keep a large dis-
ufacture. May cretionary fund in case of
prevent teams emergency.
from buying
other necessary
components

6 Payload Criteria
6.1 Payload Description/Objective

Figure 14: Transparent overview of the payload section and all component subsystems

STAR’s payload, TARS (Terrestrial Autonomous Rover System), will satisfy handbook
requirement 4.5: deployable rover (Figure 14). During flight, the rover rests inside the frame

55
of the rocket until landing, upon which a radio signal will initiate deployment (separation
of the airframe sections). A pneumatic cylinder system housed in the transition airframe
section, below the payload, will push up on the rover wheels with enough force to break two
shear pins which secure the airframe sections during flight. After complete separation, a
scissor lift mechanism mounted within the nosecone will push the rover out of the airframe
body towards the bottom of the section. After ejecting from the rocket, the rover will travel
autonomously a minimum of five feet away from the rocket and stop. A panel located at the
top of the rover will unfold, exposing a set of functional solar cells. All parts of the rover
will be five or more feet away from the rocket before and after solar panel deployment.

6.2 Payload Electrical Systems

Figure 15: Graphic overview of full payload system. The relevant subsytems are labeled and
color-coded. The overall shape corresponds to the shape of the payload airframe section.
Labelled numbers correspond to the numbers provided in the following text.

The full payload system (Figure 15) consists of a pneumatic deployment mechanism,
a scissor lift mounted in the nose cone used for ejection, and the rover itself. Each sub-
section has its own microcontroller unit (MCU). The Ejection and Deployment computers
are connected by two breakaway wire connections, which allow the ejection computer to
communicate with the deployment computer.

56
 Figure 16: Electrical component overview of Deployment subsystem.

Upon receiving the radio signal to begin deployment (1), the Ejection computer (Figure
17) transmits the start signal (2) to the Deployment computer (Figure 16). This transmission
uses a 4-20mA current driver, which is less prone to noise than a voltage-based signal. This
initiates payload deployment (3), separating the airframe and causing the transmission wire
to break at point (4).

Figure 17: Electrical component overview of Ejection subsystem.

When the wires break, the 4-20mA current driver detects the disconnection, signaling

57
to the Ejection computer that deployment is complete, initiating ejection (5). When the
rover senses ejection is complete, using a combination of a touch sensor on the wheel and an
accelerometer and gyroscope on the rover body (Figure 18) (6), it begins driving away from
the rocket (7).

Figure 18: Electrical component overview of rover subsystem.

6.3 Design Alternatives

6.3.1 Deployment

Figure 19: Translucent view of deployment subsystem

1. Remote Trigger Reception

Several design alternatives were considered for the reception and sensing of the re-
mote trigger in the Deployment computer. A breakaway wire connection between the
Deployment and Ejection computers was chosen as the final design.

(a) 3-Radio Configuration

This design would include separate radio receivers in the computers for the rover,
the pneumatic Deployment mechanism, and the Ejection scissor lift. This would
give us the greatest degree of remote control over the entire payload separation
sequence, but would put a much greater burden on our wireless devices, which
are not as reliable as physically-wired systems. We ultimately discarded this idea
to minimize the number of radio receivers on the vehicle.

58
 (b) 2-Radio Configuration
This design would include one radio in the Ejection computer and one in the
rover computer. The Ejection computer would receive the remote trigger signal
and send a signal via a breakaway wire connection to the Deployment computer,
which would initiate Deployment. Then the Ejection computer would detect the
disconnection of the breakaway wire connection and would begin ejection. When
finished, it would signal to the rover via the radio link that the rover can begin
to move.
(c) 1-Radio Configuration
This design, which is selected configuration, will include only a single radio in
the Ejection computer. The Ejection computer will receive the remote trigger
signal and will send a signal via a breakaway wire connection to the Deployment
computer, which will initiate deployment. Then the Ejection computer will detect
the disconnection of the breakaway wire connection and begin ejection. The rover
will have no wired or wireless link to the Deployment or Ejection computers, and
will instead use an on-board physical switch to detect when ejection has completed
successfully.

2. Physical Separation Methods

There were two alternatives which were given serious consideration: Black Powder
charges and an actuatable locking-pin mechanism. Both of these concepts were dis-
carded in favor of a pneumatic system.

(a) Black Powder Charges

In a black powder based system, small packets of black powder are situated above
the payload, and each packet is attached to a forty pound shear pin. Each packet
is attached to an electric match, which triggers once the rocket has confirmation
of touchdown, detonating the black powder charges. This breaks the shear pins
and ejects the transitional section from the rest of the airframe. The black powder
system was discarded in favor of the pneumatic system due to concerns about the
inherent inconsistency of a black powder charge and the proximity of detonation
to the payload, which may result in damage to the rover.
(b) Locking-Pin Mechanism
The locking-pin mechanism operates via a single servo which can retract or extend
a number of radial pins which interlock between the sections of the airframe in
much the same way that shear pins do. While in flight, these pins constrain the
airframe and prevent separation. The force of flight increases the resistance that
the pins have and prevents accidental separation. Once the rocket has confirmed
touchdown, the stress associated with flight is eased, and the centrally-situated
servo is able to retract these radial pins, effectively separating the transitional
section of the airframe from the remainder of the upper section of the rocket. The
complexity of the locking-pin mechanism led to concerns about manufacturability
and reliability.
(c) Pneumatic Piston

59
Figure 20: View of transition section housing the deploying subsystem from the 4in dia.
section

Figure 21: View of transition section housing the deploying subsystem from the 6in dia.
section

This design uses pressurized air with 1-2in of stroke to provide approximately
80lbs of force (Figure 19). The pressure will be provided by a number of 16g
CO2 threaded cartridges. These cartridges offer a low cost solution due to their
availability in bulk, the threaded nature of the cartridges allow scalability, advan-
tage of higher capacity than 12g, as well as overall low weight. In reference to
the scalability, more cartridges can be added to increase the pressure potential
of the system. The piston itself has a short stroke to ensure a delivery of high
force (Figures 20 and 21). One issue with the pistons would be their weight,
but due to other sections of the airframe weighing less than what was planned,
the issue can be mitigated within reason. A breakaway wire connection is also
being used to confirm deployment due to ease of design and implementation, as it
just requires a connection from the Ejection computer that can easily be broken
when the two sections of the airframe separate. This will also include a custom
bracket that allows the force from the Deployment to be parallel to the connector
so as to facilitate the break. The design also includes a solenoid valve rated for
approximately 100psi that will be used to open the airway tubing that fills the

60
 piston, which was chosen due to its small, lightweight, and inexpensive manner
and because its voltage matches our ideal range. Finally, it was determined that
the deployment system would be powered by 4S LiPo over AAAA series adapters
due to the uncertainty of the stage performance under rocket acceleration. The
main drawback to 4S LiPo batteries is their weight, which is mitigated by the
electrical team lending Deployment the necessary weight.

6.3.2 Ejection

Figure 22: View of scissor lift extension

1. “Explosive” Designs
The Ejection team considered several different design alternatives before finally select-
ing the servo-powered scissor lift.

(a) Preloaded Spring

The original design that was chosen and originally outlined in the NASA SL
proposal involved a preloaded spring on the rocket, located in the nosecone, that
would shove the rover out after the Deployment stage had completed. However,
this design was ultimately changed for several reasons. Primarily, there were
concerns with the potential risks/hazards associated with having a large, high-
preload spring on the flight vehicle during launch, parachute deployment, and
landing. Not only are there risks of the spring accidentally deploying at any time
during the rocket flight, it will also transfer additional shear stress to the airframe
on the nosecone, an extremely flight-critical region of the rocket.
(b) Preloaded Slingshot
Another similar design, using a railed system and preloaded elastic band was even-
tually rejected for the same reasons mentioned in the above section. Concerns
about the mechanism triggering early, high ejection loads on the rover, and relia-
bility eventually ruled out this design. Furthermore, the triggering of such a large
spring with high reliability and consistent force would be an extremely complex
technical challenge that seemed unnecessary. Finally, the large amount of force
imparted over such a small amount of time on the rover led to concerns about
high accelerations and damaging sensitive electronics and/or the actual frame of
the rover.

61
 (c) Other Designs The final proposed designs in the “explosive” category were an
attempt to avoid the earlier concerns about stress in the airframe and poten-
tial early activation. These designs involved springs or other mechanisms that
would be loaded after landing via a motor or electronically powered mechanism.
However, if the design will ultimately require a motor or electrical power, then
it was decided that the advantages of controllability and low acceleration would
outweigh the advantages provided by any of the explosive designs

2. “Controlled” Designs
The electrically-integrated designs proposed ended up falling in to two categories: tele-
scoping mechanisms and scissoring mechanisms. This is because the primary design
constraint on the Ejection mechanism is the limited vertical (Z-axis) space. Since a
non-explosive (i.e. low force for extended time rather than high force at a single in-
stance) mechanism must remain in contact with the rover face throughout the entire
ejection procedure, it is necessary for the mechanism’s plate to move along with the
rover as it exits the airframe.

(a) Telescoping Arm

The first proposed “controlled” design was a telescoping plate that would expand
to force the rover out of the payload airframe section via servo power. While this
design is relatively simple to implement and extremely space-efficient (a primary
concern), one significant issue was electrical wiring and actuation. Because of the
way the telescoping mechanism works, wiring would need to move along with the
design, and the servo powering the system would either need to move along with
the front plate, or mechanically intertwine the levels of the telescope. Since this
challenge seemed overly complicated compared to the scissor lift, the design was
ultimately dismissed.
(b) Scissor Lift

Figure 23: View of scissor lift in compression

The other design, and the one that was ultimately selected, was a scissor lift. Since
the servo won’t need to move, and the force/torque required to actuate the lift is
minimal, this design is among the easiest to implement and most customizable.
Furthermore, the design is primarily 3D printed, and thus can be exchanged and

62
 replaced easily, making testing and prototyping quick and easy. Finally, the design
is easily scalable - if larger links or a smaller base plate are required, the rest of
the design can be easily adjusted to meet the parameters (Figures 22 and 23).

6.3.3 Movement

Figure 24: Isometric view of Rover. Note: Solar panels are not depicted.

1. Rover Chassis
The chassis of the rover is the frame to which all other components will be mounted. It
will provide the structure of the rover’s body and should shield sensitive components
from environmental conditions.

(a) Chassis Design

Several layouts for the body were considered, including a cylindrical shell design,
an enclosed box design, and a partially-enclosed frame design.
The cylindrical shell body was the original design considered. The benefits of
this design include the greatest storage volume for a given radius, as well as
inherent axisymmetry. Drawbacks include the increased difficulty of mounting
internal components and decreased packing efficiency of rectangular components
compared to a rectangular design. Layouts with this design suffered from consid-
erable amounts of wasted space.
The fully-enclosed box design offers the best environmental protection, as well
as being easy to manufacture. Furthermore, a rectangular design allows for high
component packing efficiency and ease of mounting components. Drawbacks in-
clude higher weight than necessary and low structural strength for a given weight.
Another possible drawback would be heat dissipation, and the design may require
some form of ventilation in hot conditions.
Considering the drawbacks of the other designs, a partially enclosed frame design
was selected (Figure 24). This design provides high structural integrity as well as
ample mounting surfaces, while minimizing weight and being well ventilated. The
drawback of this design compared to the enclosed box is the lack of environmental
protection.
(b) Chassis Materials

63
 Rover chassis materials were selected based upon strength, weight, and ease of
manufacturing. Some chassis materials did not have sufficient strength on their
own and would require additional supports to be used as the main structural
component.
The first proposed material was PLA as the original plan was to 3D print the
payload. The advantages were ease of manufacturing and low weight, but strength
was a concern.This became increasingly unfeasible as the Rover Chassis Design
changed towards the rectangular shape as 3D printing a rectangular prism was
not highly practical nor structural powerful.
Wood was considered for the payload material after the chassis transitioned to
a rectangular prism due to ease of manufacturing and acceptably low weight.
The structural strength of the wood was a concern, along with the fact that the
direction of the grain in the wood is significant for determination of strength.
Additionally wood would need further supports to be structurally sound which
would require additional weight. These structural and weight issues led to us
discarding it in favor of a mixed polycarbonate and aluminum design.
The materials being used are polycarbonate and aluminum. Polycarbonate has
the advantage of high strength with relatively low weight and the ability to be
safely milled out for weight reduction without significant decreases in strength.
Aluminum has similar properties and provides additionally rigidity for motor
mounting. With polycarbonate and aluminum combined a relatively lightweight
and highly structurally sound rover is created which is fairly easy to manufacture.

2. Skids

Figure 25: Top view of rover depicting skids

The cylindrical design of the rover necessitates some form of support to counter the
torque of the motors moving the wheels. This support will take the form of trailing
arms that drag along the ground to provide a moment arm for the motors to push
against.

(a) Skid Design

Options for this skid include single or double-skid designs and wheeled or non-
wheeled designs. A single skid design is lighter and simpler than a double skid,
but would need to be center mounted to preserve symmetry. This limits the

64
 length of the skid. A double skid design was selected to allow for longer, offset
symmetrical skids.
A wheeled skid design would reduce friction of the skid dragging along the ground,
improving efficiency of movement. However, it would also add additional weight,
complexity, and would introduce possible failure modes such as the wheel jam-
ming. A non-wheeled design was selected for use.
(b) Skid Deployment
The skid must extend past the radius of the wheels in order to be effective.
This means they must be stored inside the rover before Ejection in order to fit.
Therefore, there must be some mechanism to deploy the skids. Options considered
include telescoping, vertically unfolding, and horizontally unfolding skids.
Telescoping skids were ruled out because of the added complexity of an auto-
matically telescoping skid. Vertically deploying skids, while they could allow for
a large skid surface, would require either a strong holding servo and significant
power usage to remain deployed, or a mechanical locking system that would add
complexity and be relatively difficult to implement. Both of these systems also
have the potential to move the rover by pushing against the ground, providing a
potential tool for clearing obstacles or getting unstuck. However, it was decided
that these benefits did not justify the drawbacks of these designs.
Horizontally deploying skids are functional, lightweight, cost effective, and easy to
implement. Thus, a design of dual, horizontally unfolding skids has been selected
(Figure 25). The skids are initially stored breadthwise underneath the rover.
Upon deployment, servos will rotate the skids into their rear-facing position. Once
deployed, the skids will fit into physical slots on the bottom of the rover, which
will help support the mechanical load placed on them during movement.
(c) Skid Material
The material used in the skids should be lightweight and durable enough to with-
stand the torque of the motors. Options considered include PLA, Aluminum,
Wood, and Polycarbonate. Aluminum is the strongest of these materials, however
it is also the heaviest and most difficult to machine. Polycarbonate is stronger
than wood and PLA and still lightweight, and the team also has a surplus of
polycarbonate is supply. Thus, polycarbonate was chosen as the material for the
skids.

3. Rover Wheels

65
 Figure 26: Isolated wheel design

The wheels of the rover must provide enough traction and terrain navigation capability,
while being as lightweight and cost-effective as possible. They also must fit within the
payload section of the rocket (of diameter 6in).

(a) Wheel Shape

The two options considered for wheel shape were solid wheels and whegs. Solid
wheels have the advantage of being durable, while having the disadvantages of
being heavier than necessary and unable to get over large obstacles. Whegs have
the advantages of being lighter and an improved ability to cross large obstacles,
but have the disadvantages of decreased efficiency of travel, possibility of leg
failure, and added stresses on rover components while driving.
(b) Wheel Material
The options for wheel material were aluminum, PLA, ABS, plywood, and foam.
The advantage of aluminum is high durability with the disadvantage of a high
density relative to the other options. The advantages of PLA are durability and
ease of manufacture, but has the disadvantage of lack of heat resistance. The
advantage of ABS is that it is less brittle than other plastics and is easy to
manufacture, but has the disadvantage of having low tensile strength and is not
heat resistant. The advantage of plywood is ease of manufacturing, but has the
disadvantage of low tensile strength.
There are many varieties of foam, most of which are lighter weight and more
deformable than plastics, metal, or wood. However, foam is also more vulnerable
to tearing and shearing and offers less structural rigidity.
Types of foam considered include polystyrene and cross-linked polyethylene. Polystyrene
is very light and relatively rigid, but is more brittle and has less tensile strength
than other types of foam. Cross-linked polyethylene is more dense, but is more

66
 durable and deformable, while being still relatively lightweight compared to other
alternatives.
4lb density cross-linked polyethylene was selected for wheel construction, as it
is lightweight, sufficiently durable, and deformable enough to facilitate obstacle
clearance while absorbing shock and vibrations. This density was selected as a
compromise between 2 lb and 6 lb foam, which will also be tested.
(c) Wheel Tread Design
The options considered for the wheel tread design are smooth round wheels,
studded round wheels, polygonal wheels, and toothed wheels. The advantage
of smooth wheels is low friction and a smooth ride but has the disadvantage of
low traction. The advantage of studded wheels is increased traction, but has the
disadvantages of increased weight, and higher friction. The advantage of polyg-
onal wheels is better traction, but the disadvantages are a bumpier ride and a
higher torque requirement. The advantages of a toothed wheel are better traction
and reduced weight, but the disadvantages are that the teeth are vulnerable to
wear and tear.
The toothed wheel design was selected over other alternatives, as it offers both
weight reduction and increased traction over a standard full-wheel design while
avoiding unacceptable compromises in travel efficiency or ride smoothness (Figure
26).

The current design is a 5.5in cross-linked polyethylene wheel with gear-like toothed
treads. This size was selected to maximize clearance while leaving space in the payload
compartment for electronics and a sleeve to facilitate deployment. Possible improve-
ments include adding studs to the wheel treads or treating them with a high-traction
coating.

4. Electronics Housing
The electronics housing must be able to protect the electrical components from the
stresses of launch and landing. The housing must also protect the electronics from
environmental conditions. The size of the housing should be minimized to reduce
weight by precisely encasing the electronics with little free space remaining.
Options for the electronics housing include the enclosed body design, attached plates,
and flexible wrapping such as cling wrap. The enclosed body design was ruled out due
to the added weight and possible heat concerns.
The option of attaching plates to the rover as necessary allow for the installation of
modular shielding to protect sensitive components, while avoiding the added weight
of a fully enclosed design. The drawbacks of this design include the need to fabricate
shielding separately, the additional weight of mounting fasteners such as screws, and
the usage of valuable mounting space on the rover frame.
Using a flexible coating would provide water and environemtal protection with minimal
weight additiom, as well as being easy to apply. However, it may cause heating issues
and could interfere with electronics if it contacts exposed components.

67
 Of the options considered, the current selection for electronics housing is to use at-
tachable modular plates, with the possibility of adding flexible coating upon further
testing.

5. Battery Selection
The battery selected for the rover must provide a high enough voltage and discharge
rate to power the rover’s electronics and enough capacity to supply power for the
duration of the autonomous movement and solar panel deployment. The battery will
be one of the heaviest and largest components in the rover, so choosing one with
minimal physical dimensions is very important.

(a) Battery Type

The first consideration in battery selection is the type of battery, and the three
primary types considered were NiMH, LiPo, and LiFe. NiMH batteries were
ruled out as lithium based batteries provide better performance for comparable
physical dimensions and are still affordable. LiFe batteries are safer to recharge
than batteries with LiPo chemistries, at the cost of higher prices. LiPo batteries
were selected for use as there are no plans to recharge the rover’s main battery
during its operation.
(b) Battery Size
4 cell (4S) batteries were chosen to be optimal as 14.8V 4S LiPo batteries provide
sufficient voltage to run 12V motors, servos and other components, while a higher
cell count unnecessarily increases weight and cost.
Finally, with respect to capacity, a 1300mAh battery was chosen as it offers a
much smaller form factor than comparable higher capacity batteries, while still
having sufficient charge capacity to last for the duration of the rover’s mission.
The specific battery chosen is a Turnigy Graphene 1300mAh 4S 45C LiPo battery.

6. Motor Selection

Figure 27: Side view of rover motor

The motors must propel the rover outside of a 5ft radius from the rocket. It must
be as efficient, lightweight, and cost effective as possible while providing maximum
terrain navigation ability. The motors should also be fast enough to fulfill the 5ft

68
 travel requirement in a timely manner. Furthermore, the motor must be compatible
with the onboard voltage regulation and wheel encoders for navigation.

(a) Motor Type

The first consideration for motor selection is the type of motor. Only electric
motors were seriously considered, due to the weight and complexity requirements
of using other types of motors such as combustion engines.
Options for electric motors include the selection between DC and AC motors,
between brushed and unbrushed motors, selection of motor voltage, and selection
of gearbox (considering type of gearbox and gear ratio). In order to meet the
criteria set for the motor, it must be geared to achieve high torque, driven by
approximately 12V or less, and compatible with encoders.
12 volt motors were selected for use as these are common and inexpensive that
offer improved performance and a greater selection compared to lower voltage
(6V, 7.2V) motors, while not being much larger or more expensive (Figure 27).
Furthermore, there are a large selection of brushed DC gearmotors. Brushless mo-
tors are more expensive than comparable brushed motors and generally required
separate gearboxes. Additionally, AC motors require an alternating current power
source which introduces unnecessary complexity. Spur gear motors were found
to be more compact and cost effective than comparable planetary gear motors,
many of which would not fit in the planned chassis layout.
(b) Gear Ratio
The gear ratio of a motor is a tradeoff between RPM and torque. For this applica-
tion, higher torque would be optimal as the rover must clear terrain, but does not
need to move very fast. A 120:1 gear ratio was chosen to be a good compromise
between reasonable speed and high torque for terrain navigation.

The current choice of motor is a 12V Cytron SPG30 series motor with 120:1 gearbox.

7. Collision Detection

Figure 28: Close-up view of collision detection sensors

The collision detection system must detect the presence and location of obstacles that
could impede the rover’s movement so that these obstacles can be avoided. Design
criteria include the system being as lightweight as possible, drawing minimal power,

69
 and being durable enough to survive the stresses of landing, recovery, and travel over
terrain. The system will consist of an array of sensors that pass data to the rover’s
central MCU, which would use the measurements in closed-loop feedback to avoid
obstacles.

(a) Sensor Type

Three types of sensors were considered for usage in this system: mechanical,
infrared, and ultrasonic sensors. Mechanical sensors would function as ”whiskers”
and would detect objects around the rover by contacting them. This system was
ruled out as it increases the weight and physical size of the rover more than other
alternatives, as well as introducing the risk of sensors getting caught or impeding
the movement of the rover.
Infrared sensors offer remote contact-free measurement and are affordable. How-
ever, they can be inconsistent over different measurement surfaces and different
lighting conditions1 . Furthermore, IR sensors of the scale and budget appropriate
for the rover suffer from narrow detection zones.
Ultrasonic sensors are inexpensive, reliable, and offer wider coverage than comparably-
priced IR sensors. The ultrasonic sensors tested were fragile to impacts and would
have to be shielded in order to ensure proper operation. More durable ultrasonic
sensors are also available.
Ultrasonic sensors were determined to be most suitable for the requirements of
the collision detection system, as they can detect objects over a larger area and in
a wide range of conditions compared to the alternatives (Figure 28). If standard
unshielded sensors such as the SparkFun HC-SR04 prove to be too fragile, more
rugged environment-shielded ultrasonic sensors could be used instead.

8. Distance Measurement
The distance measurement system must determine the rover’s position relative to the
rocket frame, in order to plan navigation and verify the minimum 5ft clearance radius
before deployment of solar panels.

(a) Sensor Type

Options for distance measurement include dead reckoning using encoders, inertial
navigation using accelerometers and gyroscopes, or sonic/light based triangulation
using transmitters on the payload frame.
Encoders provide a fairly reliable method of navigation and distance measurement
using minimal hardware, as the selected motors feature integration for encoders.
Encoders are also very useful in closed-loop motor control, which will be important
for navigation. Drawbacks of this system include vulnerability to wheel slippage
and a lack of an absolute distance measurement from the rocket frame.
Accelerometers offer another way to calculate the rover’s position by integrating
acceleration over time. However, accelerometers suitable for our application and
1
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/149/1/012141.pdf

70
 budget are typically not accurate enough to implement accurate inertial naviga-
tion. Thus, this system will be used as a very rough check of the accuracy of
other measurement systems such as the encoders.
Another option for distance measurement would be to use a visual or audio signal
transmitted from the rocket frame to determine distance from the rocket using
triangulation or computer vision. This would require transmitters to be installed
in the payload frame and receivers on the rover. While this system would ideally
provide an accurate, absolute distance measurement from the rocket, it is the
most hardware and software intensive and difficult to implement of the options.

A combination of encoder dead-reckoning and accelerometer integration has been se-

lected as the primary navigation and distance measurement system for the rover, using
accelerometer and gyroscope data to compensate for wheel slippage. This system is
more practical and reliable than any one of the three options alone, and should be
adequately reliable to navigate outside of the 5ft clearance radius.

6.3.4 Solar
1. Panel Choice and Layout
The primary consideration for panel choice was size of the individual panels. Panels
were needed that were thin and could fit inside the rover. The available options were
a single fabric mounted panel set, long individual panels, and small individual panels.
The first two options don’t provide the flexibility required for the limited space available
in the rover. It was decided that the best option is to use small 1in x 1in panels and
chain them together.
The panel layout was chosen based on the simplicity of the design. Several options
considered were origami-based panels, double/triple folded panels, and a two effective
panel layout. To meet the size and weight constraints, two effective panel layouts were
settled upon. This consists of laying the small panels next to each other on two larger
panels of plastic (or similar material). The voltage outputs of all panels would be
chained together, forming effectively two panels. The bottom panel would be mounted
inside the main body of the rover. The top panel would be mounted upside down on
the inside of the hood of the rover. Initially, the top panel will lay flat upon the bottom
panel before the rover has cleared the rocket. Upon deployment, the hood will open,
flipping the top panel up and exposing both panels.

2. Panel Deployment
The panel deployment options were also limited by the available space. Based on
the choice of layout, the top panel should simply flip open. To do so, it is attached
to a hood which helps keep the internal components of the rover safe prior to panel
deployment. Several options for how to actuate the hood of the rover to deploy the
panels were: pneumatic, motorized, and gravity/inertia dependent. Pneumatic would
require several other components in the rover, including a pressure storage unit, that
would take up a lot of space. Inertia-driven deployment would be unreliable, as it
would require a specific set of motions to accommodate. Motorized deployment was

71
 decided upon since it would only require the addition of servos and motor controllers.
In addition, it is very reliable. Two servos will be mounted in the center of the rover
near the hinge of the hood. This will ensure that there is enough force to open the
hood and that there is no uneven torque about the hinge that would wear it out.

3. Other Minor Modifications

Three minor modifications to this deployment scheme were made to increase robust-
ness. The first is that the voltage output of the solar panels would be passed into the
microcontroller onboard the rover. Thus, there is no need to carry a second battery
that needs to be charged and have a voltage regulator. This makes the design safer.
Second, a potentiometer was added to hood, such that it would notify us of the hood
position independent of the servo input. This adds a backup verification for deploy-
ment orientation. Lastly, magnets will be added to where the hood connects with the
main body of the rover. These are to prevent the hood from opening besides when it
is programmed to do so. This makes the system more robust and reliable.

6.4 Vehicle Interfaces

There are several interfaces on which the payload interacts with the launch vehicle during
Deployment and Ejection, both mechanically and electronically. During Deployment, the
payload interacts with the airframe through the piston that is located in the transition
section of the vehicle.
The Deployment sequence is initiated by a radio link from the ground station to the
Ejection computer located in the nosecone. If the Ejection computer determines that the
rocket is at rest via altimeter and accelerometer readings, it sends a signal to the Deployment
computer, which verifies those readings with its own independent altimeter and accelerom-
eter. Following both confirmations, the pneumatic deployment sequence is started, which
severs the breakaway wire connection between the Deployment computer and the Ejection
computer.
The piston’s purpose is to break the three 40lb shear pins that keep the top and bottom
portions of the rocket interlocked. In addition, through the pneumatic ejection process,
the payload interacts with the launch vehicle through a scissor lift mechanism to push the
payload out of the airframe after landing. The Ejection sequence is activated by the Ejection
computer after the breakaway wire connection is severed. The rover will determine that it has
safely ejected from the vehicle via a physical switch which will no longer be compressed when
the payload exits the airframe. Following detection of rover separation from the airframe,
the rover autonomous movement sequence will activate.
Through these interfaces, the payload will be able to effectively deploy and separate from
the launch vehicle to complete the required tasks.

72
7 Project Plan
7.1 NSL Handbook Requirements
7.1.1 General Requirements
1.1. Students on the team will do 100% of the project, including design, construction, written
reports, presentations, and flight preparation with the exception of assembling the motors and
handling black powder or any variant of ejection charges, or preparing and installing electric
matches (to be done by the teams mentor).
Non-students (mentor, faculty, other advisers) will only perform the duties allowed above in
addition to advising designs during internal design reviews and the like.
Status: Requirement has been thus far meant.
1.2. The team will provide and maintain a project plan to include, but not limited to the
following items: project milestones, budget and community support, checklists, personnel
assigned, educational engagement events, and risks and mitigations.
Extensive project plan has been included in this report and in even more extensive consider-
ation on the team Google Drive. Proper sub-tam leads will verify that all aspects of project
plan are kept up-to-date.
1.3. Foreign National (FN) team members must be identified by the Preliminary Design
Review (PDR) and may or may not have access to certain activities during launch week due
to security restrictions. In addition, FNs may be separated from their team during these
activities.
An complete team roster including citizenship information of all members is being main-
tained. All 9 FN team members have been identified in an email (not including in appendix
because sheet has prsonal contact information).
Status: Complete
1.4. The team must identify all team members attending launch week activities by the Critical
Design Review (CDR). Team members will include: 1.4.1. Students actively engaged in the
project throughout the entire year. 1.4.2. One mentor (see requirement 1.14). 1.4.3. No
more than two adult educators.
All members and our mentor have been made aware of launch week dates and logistics.
Members will be asked to give their best guess of interest/availability by end of the semester
(a month prior to CDR).
Status: Incomplete
1.5. The team will engage a minimum of 200 participants in educational, hands-on science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities, as defined in the Educational
Engagement Activity Report, by FRR. An educational engagement activity report will be
completed and submitted within two weeks after completion of an event. A sample of the
educational engagement activity report can be found on page 31 of the handbook. To satisfy
this requirement, all events must occur between project acceptance and the FRR due date.
At all outreach events, a clicker is used to record the number of participants reached. The
Outreach Team lead is responsible for activity report submission.

73
Status: Requirement exceeded. Over 932 participants reached at point of submission (11/03/17).

1.6. The team will develop and host a Web site for project documentation.
The team website has been active for over a year and is being managed by our Web Team.
Status: Complete
1.7. Teams will post, and make available for download, the required deliverables to the team
Web site by the due dates specified in the project timeline.
The Web Team lead will add all report deliverables to the team website by the due dates.
The Reports Team lead will confirm that this has been done.
Status: Complete for PDR.
1.8. All deliverables must be in PDF format.
Will be verified by Reports Team lead. Status: Complete for PDR.
1.9. In every report, teams will provide a table of contents including major sections and their
respective sub-sections.
As reports are being compiled using LATEX the ”tableofcontents” command as well as nec-
essary packages allow for the team to easily have accurate table of contents providing both
sections and all sub-sections. The Reports Team lead is responsible for verifying this has
indeed been done.
Status: Completed for PDR.
1.10. In every report, the team will include the page number at the bottom of the page.
Similarly to the previous requirement, LATEX packages will automatically and accurately
perform this task. The Reports Team lead is responsible for verifying this has indeed been
done.
Status: Completed for PDR.
1.11. The team will provide any computer equipment necessary to perform a video telecon-
ference with the review panel. This includes, but is not limited to, a computer system, video
camera, speaker telephone, and a broadband Internet connection. Cellular phones can be used
for speakerphone capability only as a last resort.
Campus meeting rooms and equipment will be reserved for each review teleconference. Ac-
ceptable internet connection will be verified approximately 15 minutes prior to the scheduled
start time. The Team President will be responsible for verifying all aspects are satisfied.
Status: A campus meeting room has been reserved for the PDR teleconference.
1.12. All teams will be required to use the launch pads provided by Student Launchs launch
service provider. No custom pads will be permitted on the launch field. Launch services will
have 8ft. 1010 rails, and 8 and 12 ft. 1515 rails available for use.
The vehicle has been designed to be used with a 1515 rail of either design. Internal Design
Reviews (IDR’s) will ensure that there are no design features preventing this. A piece of
1515 will be used to ensure proper rail button alignment.
Status: Incomplete
1.13. Teams must implement the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) Accessibility Standards (36 CFR Part
1194).

74
All web based information created by the club is made available to people with disabilities.
Status: Complete
1.14. Each team must identify a mentor. A mentor is defined as an adult who is included as
a team member, who will be supporting the team (or multiple teams) throughout the project
year, and may or may not be affiliated with the school, institution, or organization. The
mentor must maintain a current certification, and be in good standing, through the National
Association of Rocketry (NAR) or Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) for the motor impulse
of the launch vehicle and must have flown and successfully recovered (using electronic, staged
recovery) a minimum of 2 flights in this or a higher impulse class, prior to PDR. The mentor
is designated as the individual owner of the rocket for liability purposes and must travel with
the team to launch week. One travel stipend will be provided per mentor regardless of the
number of teams he or she supports. The stipend will only be provided if the team passes
FRR and the team and mentor attends launch week in April.
Our mentor (see Team Summary) has all necessary qualifications, will be taking legal re-
sponsibility of the rocket, and will be traveling to launch week.
Status: Complete

7.1.2 Airframe Requirements

See subsection 3.3.

7.1.3 Payload Requirements

1. 4.5.1 Teams will design a custom rover that will deploy from the internal structure of
the launch vehicle
STAR plans to field a custom two-wheeled rover design. Ejection of the rover from
the internal structure will be verified through a touch sensor, an accelerometer, and a
gyroscope integrated into the rover.
2. 4.5.2 At landing, the team will remotely activate a trigger to deploy the rover from the
rocket.
An onboard altimeter and accelerometer are used to verify that the vehicle has landed
and settled. In the absence of this condition, the radio trigger for Deployment will be
disabled.
3. 4.5.3 After Deployment, the rover will autonomously move at least 5ft (in any direction)
from the launch vehicle.
To address this requirement, the rover will have sensors to detect obstacles that may
prevent the achievement of a 5ft distance. Wheel encoders will measure the distance
traveled from the rocket to the rover, while the accelerometers and gyroscopes will help
compensate for possible wheel slippage error.
4. 4.5.4. Once the rover has reached its final destination, it will deploy a set of foldable
solar cell panels.
To address this requirement, wheel encoders will be used to detect the number of rev-
olutions of the wheels, translating revolutions to distance traveled with added safety

75
 factors to account for slippage and navigation. Once the rover reaches the final desti-
nation, servo arms will open the hood of the rover, in turn deploying the panels. To
prevent accidental early solar panel unfolding, magnets will provide additional force to
keep the rover hood closed. The servos that open the hood will be able to overcome
this extra force.

7.2 Team Derived Requirements

7.2.1 General TDRs
There will be a sub-report document for all sections within a report.
A workshop was held to teach LaTeX to club members. In addition a club specific .Tex
sourcecode tutorial is available for all members of the club. This ensures that there will be
ample members of each sub-team with the necessary skills to create LaTeX reports. Master
document access will be severely restricted until final editing to ensure all sub-documents
are as complete and up-to-date as possible. Verified by inspection of Reports lead.
Status: Verified for PDR.
All reports have consistent style, formatting, and elements.
There is a document containing the numerous conventions members will follow when writing
reports (e.g. how to format a certain table, when to use ft vs. in, etc.). In addition, deadlines
will be enforced to allow sufficient time for editing. Verified by inspection of team leads and
Reports lead.
Status: Verified for PDR. Conventions document will continue to be updated as needed for
future reports.

7.2.2 Payload TDRs

1. Deployment

(a) The Deployment system should not initiate until on the ground after being given
the command by the main flight computer.
To address this requirement, we will use accelerometer and altimeter data to verify
a successful flight, touchdown, and settling of the airframe, with the Deployment
unable to initiate until these conditions have been met.
(b) The system should receive a signal when separation is complete.
To address this requirement, a breakaway wire connection between the Ejection
computer and the Deployment computer will be separated, which will signal that
separation is complete.
(c) The breakaway wire connection should not be broken before the separation event
due to flight and touchdown stresses.
To address this requirement, failure modes and effects analysis will be done to
investigate the likelihood of rocket acceleration causing the connector to detach.
Additionally, within subscale launches, the connector will be tested to see if it
will separate in an experimental setting.

76
 (d) The batteries used to power the pneumatic pistons must be able to withstand rocket
acceleration.
To address this requirement, a 4S LiPo battery will be used, since lithium polymer
batteries are not likely to shear internally and malfunction.
(e) The Deployment system must not damage the rover.
To address this requirement, the method of Deployment was changed to a pneu-
matic piston system over the previously approved black powder charges to min-
imize any unintended explosive force damaging the rover. FEA will be done to
investigate any potentially harmful forces that may damage the rover, as well as
extensive prototyping of the rover and the pneumatic piston system to the same
end.
(f) The lower part of the airframe must be fully separated to allow successful rover
ejection.
To address this requirement, the pneumatic pistons will generate 120lbs of force
to push the payload away from the rest of the launch vehicle.

2. Ejection

(a) The payload Ejection system shall be able to successfully eject rover on a slope of
up to at least 20 degrees.
To address this requirement, a servo powered scissor lift will be used to push the
rover out of the payload section. To verify the requirement, the payload Ejection
subsytem will be tested under these conditions.
(b) The payload Ejection system must be reusable and easily resettable.
To address this requirement, the scissor lift will be able to retract after ejecting
the rover. To verify this requirement, reusability will be demonstrated through
multiple and consecutive tests of the Ejection system.
(c) Critical components of the Ejection system must have redundancy.
To address this requirement, the scissor lift will be powered by two servos, but
will only necessitate one servo to successfully eject the rover. To verify this re-
quirement, the Ejection system will be tested for successful rover ejection with
only one of two servos powering the Ejection scissor lift.
(d) Payload Ejection must occur only after a complete and successfully separation of
airframe.
To address this requirement, the separation of the airframe will disconnect the
breakaway wire connection to signal to the Ejection computer to begin the Ejec-
tion process.
(e) The payload Ejection system shall not damage the rover.
To address this requirement, the servo-controlled scissor lift will provide a slow
and controlled method of ejecting the rover. FEA will be performed before man-
ufacturing.
(f) The Ejection scissor lift must sustain the compressive force from the pneumatic
piston.

77
 To address this requirement, the compressive forces of the piston will be redirected
away from the linkages of the scissor lift by means of a brace supporting the upper
platform of the lift. FEA will be performed on the models before manufacturing.
Additionally, stress tests will be conducted on the scissor lift components.

3. Movement

(a) Wheel design must allow the rover to traverse rough terrain.
To address this requirement, a solid toothed wheel made out of crosslinked polyethy-
lene will optimize weight, cost, durablilty, and practicality. FEA will be conducted
on the model before manufacturing.
(b) Electronics housing must shield components from environmental conditions and
flight stresses.
Electronics housing will be designed to minimize vibration and fully enclose com-
ponents from outside elements such as dust. Vibrational testing will be performed
on all components to verify requirement is met.
(c) Detect obstacles near the rover in order to avoid collisions.
To address this requirement, adequate sensors will be chosen to ensure accurate
measurements and detection of obstacles in the direct path of the rover. To verify
this requirement, the hardware and software will be tested prior to launch.
(d) Design must actively prevent movement while rover is within airframe.
A physical switch will send a signal to the rover computer as it is depressed while
the rover rests within the airframe. Until that signal is no longer present for an
extended period of time, the rover will not activate the autonomous movement
portion of its program.
(e) Rover must be reusable after launch.
Rover materials were chosen for resilience to launch and terrain conditions, as
well as strength and reliability, and the rover electronics housing is designed to
minimize any possible damage to the electronics during flight and movement.

4. Solar

(a) Upon deployment of the solar panels, no part of the rover or panels should be
within 5ft, as measured in a straight line, from any part of the launch vehicle.
To address this requirement, wheel encoders will be used to measure the number
of rotations of the wheels, translating that value to distance traveled. A safety
factor to account for slippage and navigation will be included, to ensure that the
rover will have traveled at least 5ft from the airframe before deployment occurs.
(b) The design and operation of the solar panel system is not regulated other than that
it must utilize real solar cells, the solar panel(s) must be foldable, and the solar
panel(s) must be deployed by the rover at least 5ft away from the launch vehicle.
To address this requirement, the voltage output of the solar panels will be mon-
itored. This output will be passed into an analog-to-digital converter which will
then be passed into an input on the rover computer. Thus, this ensures that the

78
 functionality of the solar panels is always monitored. The solar system will be
folded via servos which will open the rover housing. The servos will be controlled
by the rover computer, allowing for autonomous deployment once the rover is at
least 5ft away from the airframe of the rocket.
(c) The system should measure the extent of panel deployment with minimal additional
hardware and power.
To address this requirement, a potentiometer will be used as a secondary means
of verification. The device will be mounted in the main body of the rover with
the rod attached to the hood. Any changes in hood position will correspond to a
change in rod rotation angle.
(d) The system should work under a realistic range of weather and lighting conditions,
such as nighttime, sunny, overcast.
To address this requirement, solar panels with a sealed exterior will be used,
allowing for use in a wide variety of weather conditions. Deployment of the
panels will be determined by the distance that the rover has traveled relative to
the airframe, so no environmental stimuli are required for deployment.
(e) The system should communicate with the rover’s main computer.
To address this requirement, the computer will communicate with the servos to
deploy the hood when it has verified that the rover has traveled at least 5ft from
the airframe.
(f) The system will require multiple measurements in order to confirm deployment
status.
To address this requirement, a potentiometer will be used on top of monitoring the
servo rod angles. These give us two independent verifications of panel deployment.
(g) The system should fully fit inside the rover before deployment.
To address this requirement, the components of the solar array will be recessed
within the housing of the rover.
(h) The system should be robust such that it survives launch, flight, touchdown, rover
deployment, and rover movement.
To address this requirement, the recessed solar panels will be permanently at-
tached to the housing of the rover with no clearances, as to avoid movement
within the space allotted for the panels.
(i) The system should be reusable and able to be folded back into place, preferably
electromechanically. No parts should need to be replaced.
To address this requirement, servo arms operating on an independent electrical
system will open and close the housing of the rover to deploy the panels. This
system should be fully reusable.
(j) The system should not deploy nor should the panels unfold unless intentional.
To address this requirement, servos and magnets will hold the housing of the rover
closed until the desired time (after driving at least 5ft from the rover).

79
7.3 Budget
7.3.1 Airframe Budget
Sub-scale
Component Vendor Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Nosecone Apogee Components $37.95 1 $37.95
Payload Tubing Apogee Components $38.95 1 $38.95
Aft Tubing Apogee Components $26.95 1 $26.95
1
Transition Fibre Glast $36.25 3
$12.08
1
Boat tail Fibre Glast $36.25 3
$12.08
1
Fin can Fibre Glast $36.25 3
$12.08
Forward Couplers Apogee Rockets $10.95 1 $10.95
Aft Couplers Apogee Rockets $9.25 2 $18.50
Motor Tubing Public Missiles $14.99 1 $14.99
Motor Retainer Apogee Components $31.03 1 $31.03
Glue/Expoxy Fibre Glast $44.95 1 $44.95
Subtotal $260.51
Full-scale
Nosecone Public Missiles $104.99 1 $104.99
Payload Tubing Apogee Components $66.95 1 $66.95
Aft Tubing Apogee Components $38.95 1 $77.90
1
Transition Fibre Glast $36.25 3
$12.08
1
Boat tail Fibre Glast $36.25 3
$12.08
1
Fin can Fibre Glast $36.25 3
$12.08
Forward Couplers Apogee Components $19.95 1 $19.95
Aft Couplers Apogee Components $39.95 1 $39.95
Motor Tubing Public Missiles $18.99 1 $18.99
Motor Retainer Apogee Components $58.85 1 $58.85
Glue/Expoxy Fibre Glast $44.95 1 $44.95
Subtotal $468.77
Total $729.28

7.3.2 Recovery Budget

N.B.: Please note that because the launch vehicle was designed so that many recovery
components used on last year’s rocket (including parachutes) could be re-used this year,
many components have a price of $0.

Component Vendor Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost

Main Altimeter N/A $0 2 $0
Back-up Altimeter N/A $0 2 $0
Duracell 9V Battery N/A $3 5 $15
TeleGPS N/A $0 1 $0

80
 L2 Tender Descender N/A $0 2 $0
Large Heat Blanket Apogee Rockets $70 1 $70
24in Torodial Drougue N/A $0 1 $0
72in Torodial Main N/A $0 1 $0
Sub-scale drougue N/A $0 1 $0
Sub-scale main N/A $0 1 $0
1
4
in tubular kevlar N/A $0 150ft $0
Small heat blanket Apogee Rockets $50 1 $50
Black powder $.13 40g $5
1
4
in Threaded Aluminum Rods N/A $0 2 $0
U-bolt N/A $0 1 $0
Plywood 18inx24in Jacob’s Hall (campus) $3 1 $3
High Fidelity 3D Prints Jacob’s Hall (campus) $50 2 $100
Wire Ace Hardware $2 5ft $10
1
4
-20 Screws N/A $0 4 $0
1
4
-20 Nuts N/A $0 4 $0
2-56 Screws N/A $0 16 $0
2-56 Nuts N/A $0 16 $0
Misc N/A N/A $30
Total $283

7.3.3 Payload Budget

The structures for the scissor lift will be 3D printed, and thus incur no or almost no cost
to manufacture each.

Deployment
Part Type Part Name Dimensions (in) Unit Price # Total
Price
Pneumatic Pis- Parker Hanifin To be Confirmed $23.97 1 $23.97
ton Series LP Non-
Lubricated Com-
pact Air Cylinder
Pneumatic Tank Genuine Inno- To be Confirmed $14.75 6 $14.75
vations G21513
Threaded CO2
Cartridge
Polyethylene PureSec White PE To be Confirmed $6.99 1 $6.99
Tubing Tubing 1/4” OD x
0.142 in. OD. 5ft.
length

81
Accelerometer LIS331 0.60x0.70x0.062 $9.95 1 $9.95
Altimeter MPL3115A2 0.80x0.50x0.062 $14.95 1 $14.95
Solenoid V2 Valve - Minia- 0.63x0.67x2.02 $80 1 $80
ture Pneumatic
Solenoid Valve
Structure Piston Pressure 4.00 dia. x 0.500 $0 (3D 1 $0
Plate thick printed)
Breakaway Wire Molex, LLC To be Confirmed $30 1 $30
Connector 0510470200 M/F
Pair
Misc Hardware N/A N/A $20 1 $20
Sub-total $200.61
Ejection
Part Type Part Name Dimensions (in) Unit Price # Total
Price
Structure Base Plate 5.00x5.00x1.00 $0.00 1 $0.00
Structure Linkage 3.15x0.50x0.175 $0.00 20 $0.00
Structure Top Plate 5.00x5.00x4.50 $0.00 1 $0.00
Motor Servo, Hitec HS- 1.73x0.90x0.98 $25.00 2 $50.00
75BB Retract
Fastener Push-In Rivets 0.354x0.354x0.5 $5.31 (pack of 2 $12.00
(McMaster Part #: 25)
98295A100)
Accelerometer LIS331 0.60x0.70 $9.95 1 $9.95
Altimeter MPL3115A2 0.80x0.50 $14.95 1 $14.95
Radio RFM69HCW, .63x.63x0.062 $4.95 1 $4.95
434MHz
Misc Hardware N/A N/A $15 1 $15
Sub-total $106.85
Movement
Part Type Part Name Dimensions (in) Unit Price # Total
Price
Motor Cytron MO-SPG30- 1.50x15.00x2.24 $21.32 2 $42.64
20K
Motor Con- Cytron 13A, 5-30V To be Confirmed $13.82 2 $27.64
troller Single DC Motor
Controller
Wheel Material 4lb density cross- 24.00x24.00x1.0 $12.50 1 $12.50
linked polyethylene (sheet)
Wheel Hubs Pololu 6mm Uni- 1.00x1.00x0.36 $3.95 2 $7.90
versal Aluminum
Mounting Hub

82
 Battery Turnigy Graphene 2.87x1.34x1.38 $19.94 1 $19.94
1300mAh 4S 45C
Lipo Pack w/ XT60
Ultrasonic Sen- SparkFun HC SR-04 1.77x0.79x0.59 $3.95 2 $7.90
sor
Microprocessor ATMega 328p 1.50x0.27x0.13 $1.90 1 $1.90
Body Material 1/4” thickness 24.00x24.00x0.25 $20.00 1 $20.00
Lexan
Skid Deploy- HiTec HS-77B 1.73x0.90x0.98 $24.49 2 $48.98
ment Servos
Gyroscope SparkFun ITG 3200 0.70x0.85x0.062 $24.95 1 $24.95
Accelerometer SparkFun LIS331 0.60x0.70x0.062 $9.95 1 $9.95
Misc Hardware N/A N/A $25 1 $25
Sub-total $249.30
Solar
Part Type Part Name Dimensions (in) Unit Price # Total
Price
Solar Panels Micro Mini Power 2.08x1.54x0.12 $16.49 2 $32.98
Solar Cells
Servo TowerPro SG-5010- 1.59x0.79x1.50 $12.00 2 $24
5010
Potentiometer Bns Inc. 3590S-2- 1.58x0.87x0.75 $14.35 1 $14.35
103L
Misc Hardware N/A N/A $15 1 $15
Sub-total $86.33
Total $643.09

7.3.4 Outreach Budget

Ohlone College Night of Science

Component Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Film Canisters (Pack of 60) $26.06 1 $26.06
Wooden Coffee Stirrer, 5.5” (Pack of 2000) $8.91 1 $8.91
Construction Paper Ream, 9 x 12, (500 Sheets) $10.41 1 $10.41
Bayer Alka-Seltzer, Original (116ct) $10.69 4 $42.76
Craft Smart Mini Glue Gun $2.99 10 $29.90
Surebonder Mini Glue Sticks (Pack of 100) $9.99 2 $19.98
1/2 in. 2 ft. x 2 ft. Medium Density Fiber Board $5.95 1 $5.95
1in. x 3in. x 6ft. Select Pine Board $6.72 1 $6.72
1/4 in. x 36 in. Plain Steel Round Rod $3.42 1 $3.42

83
 1/8 in. x 1-1/2 in. Lead-Free Brass Pipe Nipple $3.542 $7.08
SAKRETE 60 lb. Multi-Purpose Sand $3.351 $3.35
14in. x 25in. Polypropylene Sand Bag $0.324 $1.28
Painters Touch 2x White Primer Spray Paint $3.871 $3.87
Specialty Metallic Silver Spray Paint $2.981 $2.98
Scissors (Pack of 12) $12.60
2 $25.20
Subtotal $197.87
High School Engineering Program
Wooden Coffee Stirrer, 5.5” (Pack of 2000) $8.91 1 $8.91
Subtotal $8.91
Discovery Days CSU East Bay
Film Canisters (Pack of 60) $26.06 2 $52.12
Bayer Alka-Seltzer, Original (32ct) $6.50 2 $13.00
3D printed parts $0.10 25 $2.50
Lunch for volunteers $5.00 6 $30.00
Subtotal $97.62
Discovery Days AT&T Park
Film Canisters (Pack of 60) $26.06 4 $104.24
Bayer Alka-Seltzer, Original (116ct) $10.69 6 $64.14
3D printed parts $0.10 260 $26.00
Lunch for volunteers $5.00 16 $80.00
Subtotal $274.38
First Friday at Chabot Space & Science Center
Unkown Materials $150.00 1 $150.00
Subtotal $150.00
Space Day
Unkown Materials $400.00 1 $400.00
Subtotal $400.00
Total 1,128.78

7.4 Funding
7.4.1 Summary
This year, we project a total budget of approximately $24,000. This is a marked increase
from 2016-17’s budget, $5,000. Of the $24,000, we have obtained approximately $20,000 and
spent about $2,000.

7.4.2 Description of Accounts

As a Registered Student Organization (RSO) at UC Berkeley, we are required to hold
all funds within school accounts. Due to the structure of the Associated Students of the

84
University of California (ASUC), we have two main accounts, one managed by the umbrella
ASUC, and one managed by an engineering RSO specific organization called the Engineering
Student Council (ESC). Each of these two funds are further subdivided into a Miscellaneous
and Programs account. Miscellaneous funds have little to no restriction on their use. The
team plans on using these funds for travel and most material purchases. Program funds
come from the school and are heavily restricted. They can only be used on materials that
directly benefit Berkeley students.
All private and most corporate donations go directly into our ASUC-Misc Account. Due
to the structure of the ASUC and ESC, all program (school) funds go into our ESC-Programs
Account. Bulk donations from GM, Boeing, and other large corporations typically go to our
ESC-Misc Account as ESC handles the subdivision of large engineering donations. Below is
a diagram illustrating how our funds are stored.
Account Organization
ASUC
Programs ($0 since Program funds go through ESC)
Misc (Most Small Donations)
ESC
Programs (Usually $2,500 from school)
Misc (Bulk Corporate Donations)

7.4.3 Funding
As of now, the bulk of our funds are from crowdfunding campaigns. Of our projected
$24,000 , we have already secured approximately $20,000 (approximate as a few transfers are
still pending and fees may reduce actual amount). Of this, $9,500 was generated through
three crowdfunding campaigns (two through the school as part of the Big Give and Berkeley
Crowdfunding, and one from our own GoFundMe page).
We also recieved a $2,500 initial allocation from the school (pulled from campus wide
student activity fees). The remaining $8,000 comes from a few corporate sponsors including
Boeing, Aragon Research, Google, and Northrop Grumman.
We currently have a few fundraising projects underway. First, with the increasing success
and turnout of our outreach events, we are beginning to sell team made science kits on a
recommended donation basis (e.g. we recommend a donation of $5 dollars for the kit, but
feel free to give us less or more for the kit.). Second, we have a pending application for $2,000
from SpaceX. Third, we have pending applications for other school funds ($5,000 from the
Student Technology Fund, $750 from the Academic Oppurtunity Fund, and $750 from the
Intellectual Community Fund).

7.4.4 Distribution of Funds

To more efficiently handle funds, we have allocated our projected $24,000 budget into 9
subteams and 1 discretionary fund. The discretionary fund is very large, at approximately
2.5 times the size of any other subteam. This fund is used to handle emergencies like CATOs
or ballistic recoveries. This fund contains $8,000.
The next largest allocated amount goes to Propulsion, which has $3,000. This is 18.8%

85
of non-discretionary funds. Propulsion will also be working on an Intercollegiate Rocket
Engineering Competition rocket and liquid motor, on top of choosing and purchasing a
COTS motor for NASA SL, hence the large budget.
After Propulsion is Airframe, with $2,800 at 17.5%. We expect to spend money on
prototyping various modifications to the airframe, such as custom composites rolling (a table
roller, heat shrink tape wrapper, oven, and mandrel extractor have already been acquired),
boat tails, and control surfaces.
Next is Payload with $2,200 at 13.8%. Payload will be responsible for designing, proto-
typing, testing, and building the scientific challenge. Payload will also be working with local
organizations like the Space Sciences Laboratory to send up other scientific experiments.
Recovery will have $1,900 at 11.9%. Recovery plans on reusing chutes and prototyping
two-stage single-chute recovery.
Electronics has $1,800 at 11.3%. Electronics purchases ALL electronics and controls
equipment for this project.
Safety has $1,700 at 10.6%. As we are still forming as a team, safety will have many large
one-time purchases this year, including flammables cabinets, infrastructure for inventory, and
PPE. We also expect recurring costs like hazardous waste disposal and materials handling
training.
Outreach has $1,150 at 7.2%. Outreach plans on expanding drastically. In fact we have
already interacted with over 1,000 local students in just two months. We plan on hosting
larger events as the year progresses.
Logistics also has $1,150 at 7.2%. Logistics funds will be used for travel, shipping,
facilities, and human resources. Funds from logistics will be used to buy tools, pay for
non-safety related training, convention fees, and maintainence fees.
Lastly, our Reports team will also have $300 at 1.9% of our non-discretionary budget.
This will be used to pay for food at report writing parties and any fees that may come up.

7.4.5 Material Acquisition

Not mentioned in Section 7.4.3, we also have several in-kind sponsorships. As of now,
we are partnering with Bay Area Circuits to have our custom internally designed flight
computers manufactured for free. Additionally, we have approximately 100 software licenses
from Solidworks and training for 2 members from Ansys. We plan on asking TAP Plastics (a
local plastics distributor) if they are interested in working with us to supply epoxies, plastics,
and composite materials.
We typically source our raw materials from McMaster-Carr, our electronics components
from Adafruit and DigiKey, and our motors from HobbyKing. We source our rocket materials
from Always Ready Rocketry (Blue Tube), Fruity Chutes (parachutes), Apogee Rockets
(assorted rocket parts), and Public Missles (fiberglass fins and assorted rocket parts).

7.5 Timeline
7.5.1 Design Team Tasks

86
Task Start Date End Date
Team-Wide
PDR due Nov 3rd 2017
PDR Video-conference Nov 13th 2017
Sub-scale Launch Dec 2nd 2017
Sub-scale Back-up Launch Jan 6th 2018
CDR Due Jan 12th 2018
Full-scale Launch Feb 3rd 2018
Full-scale Back-up Launch March 3rd 2018
FRR Due March 5th 2018
Launch Week April 4th 2018 April 8th 2018
Airframe
Manufacture sub-scale launch vehicle Nov 4th 2017 Nov 27th 2017
Get Ansys simulations functional Nov 4th 2017 Dec 2nd 2017
FEA on all possibly failing components Nov 4th 2017 Dec 2nd 2017
Necessary changes to full-scale design Dec 3rd 2017 Dec 24th 2017
Manufacture full-scale launch vehicle Jan 14th 2017 Jan 30th 2017
Payload
Rover Prototype Full Scale Nov 6th 2017 Dec 24th 2017
Ejection and Deployment Prototype Subscale Nov 6th 2017 Dec 2nd 2017
Deployment shear pin forces testing Nov 13th 2017 Dec 24th 2017
Scissor-lift force testing Nov 13th 2017 Dec 24th 2017
Rover Distance verification testing Nov 24th 2017 Dec 2nd 2017
Rover movement testing Nov 24th 2017 Dec 2nd 2017
Remote trigger radio tests Nov 20th 2017 Dec 2nd 2017
Solar Assembly testing Nov 24th 2017 Dec 2nd 2017
Payload Complete Assembly Full scale testing Jan 22th 2018 Jan 26th 2018
Full scale payload Jan 15th 2018 Feb 3rd 2018
Recovery
Sub-scale Sled Design Nov 1st 2017 Nov 13th 2017
Figure out wiring systems Nov 1st 2017 Nov 6th 2017
Figure out switch placement Nov 1st 2017 Nov 6th 2017
BOM Table Nov 1st 2017 Nov 13th 2017
Discuss lock mechanism Nov 6th 2017 Nov 6th 2017
Determine manufacturing or bulkheads Nov 4th 2017 Nov 6th 2017
Verify Parahute Usability Nov 4th 2017 Nov 6th 2017
Sub-scale Parachute calculations Nov 6th 2017 Nov 13th 2017
Sub-scale prototype printed Nov 13th 2017 Nov 20th 2017
Ventilation hole calculations Nov 13th 2017 Nov 20th 2017
Full-scale recovery system mock-up Nov 13th 2017 Nov 27th 2017
Static Load Test Dec 1st 2017
7.5.2 Outreach Events

Event Date

Ohlone College Night of Science October 7th, 2017

Parent Education Program October 14th, 2017

High School Engineering Program October 21st, 2017

Discovery Days, CSU East Bay October 28th, 2017

Discovery Days, AT&T Park November 11th, 2017

First Friday at Chabot Space & Science Center January 5th, 2018

Space Day TBD

Ohlone College Night of Science

The Ohlone College Night of Science (October 7, 2017) is an annual event at Ohlone
College where various groups provide science demonstrations and activities to the general
public. STAR held three classrooms at the event; one classroom as a general display where
the public can learn more about NASA SL and the team, one classroom with an alka-seltzer
rocket lesson, and one classroom with a spacecraft structures activity. In total, 407 students
were directly interacted with and 469 adults were indirectly interacted with.

Parent Education Program

The Parent Education Program hosted by the Society of Women Engineers (October 14,
2017) is an event where lower-income parents were invited to talk to STAR, alongside other
clubs, to learn about engineering and how to get their daughters involved in engineering.
STAR brought the NASA 2016-2017 rocket to the event, and talked to both parents and
their children about aerospace engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, and
rocketry in general. In total, STAR indirectly interacted with 6 parents and 14 students.

High School Engineering Program

The High Engineering Engineering Program hosted by the Society of Women Engineers
(October 21, 2017) is a 10 week long program for high school girls to get introduced to en-
gineering. STAR gave a presentation on aerospace engineering, then did a hands-on activity
where the students were able to build their own engine structures. The engine structures had
to be as light as possible, yet survive the forces of launch. In total, STAR directly interacted
with 14 students and 7 educators.

88
Discovery Days, CSU East Bay

Discovery Days, CSU East Bay (October 28, 2017) is a free day of science where com-
munity members are able to participate in hands on science activities. Approximately 8,000
people attended the event. At the event, STAR brought the NASA 2016-2017 rocket and
several components as a display. STAR volunteers also built alka-seltzer rockets with the
participants, where they were able to choose a nosecone, fins, and the amount of ”fuel” they
wanted to use. At the event, STAR directly interacted with 511 students and indirectly
interacted with approximately 300 adults.

Discovery Days, AT&T Park

Discovery Days, CSU East Bay (November 11, 2017) is a free day of science where bay
area residents are able to participate in hands on science activities. It it estimated that
approximately 30,000 people will attend the event. STAR will bring display pieces for this
event, as well as host the alka-seltzer rocket activity again, as it has been a huge success.
Plans for improvement include better 3D printed parts and more stable launch pads.

First Friday at Chabot Space & Science Center

First Friday at Chabot Space & Science Center (January 5, 2018) is a night of science
open to the community. This year’s theme is ”Rockets and Robotics.” STAR will host a
display booth and a hands-on activity related to rocketry or space.

Space Day

Space Day (TBD) is an event that STAR is currently planning. The event would be
a day of space related activities that students from around the bay area would be able to
attend for free. Other student groups on campus would be able to sign up and host their own
activities during the event. STAR would provide lunches for all students and volunteers.

Summary

In summary, STAR has directly interacted with 932 students as of PDR. STAR is aiming
to directly interact with at least 1500 students by CDR, which is a reasonably attainable
goal given the current events that are planned.

89
Appendix A List of Project Leaders
Name Primary Duties
Aaron Togelang Logistics Officer
Adam Huth Outreach Officer
Allen Ruan Recovery Officer
Brunston Poon Vice President, Payload Officer
Carly Pritchett President, Payload Officer
Dinesh Parimi Electronics
Evan Borzilleri Recovery
Grant Posner Safety Officer
Jacob Posner Electronics Officer
Jacob Barkley Safety
Jun Park Budget Officer
Ryan O’Gorman Reports
Sean Pak Outreach, Website Management
Surya Duggirala Outreach
Tushar Singla Airframe Officer

90
Appendix B Safety Agreement
It is a particular interest and duty of the safety team to ensure that requirements of
safety codes and regulations are met when constructing, assembling, and launching a rocket.
To abide by these regulations, and in order to maintain overall safety, each team member
must follow these rules:
1. Before any launch, pay attention to the pre-launch and safety briefings.
2. At any launch of our main rocket (not sub-scale), stay at least 200 feet away from the
launch site when the rocket is ready to launch, and focus on safety.
3. When constructing the rocket, always wear appropriate clothing (no loose clothing
near machinery and power tools) and proper personal protective equipment (PPE),
and make sure to read relevant MSDS data sheets.
4. If there is any confusion over how to use a tool or machine, ask a more experienced
person for help.
5. Always follow instructions of launch officers at a launch site, including the Range Safety
Officer.
6. If our rocket does not pass a safety inspection or does not meet all relevant safety
requirements, then we must comply with the determination of the inspection and not
launch the rocket.
7. Before a launch the team’s Safety Officer and team mentor, along with the Range
Safety Officer, have the right to deny the launch of our rocket for safety reasons.
Furthermore, each member must agree to abide by all of the following codes and regulations,
at the direction of the safety team:
1. NAR High Power Safety Code
2. FAA regulations, including 14 CFR Subchapter F Part 101 Subpart C
3. NFPA 1127
The team as a whole agrees to abide by the following regulations from the Student Launch
Handbook:
1. Range safety inspections of each rocket before it is flown. Each team shall comply with
the determination of the safety inspection or may be removed from the program.
2. The Range Safety Officer has the final say on all rocket safety issues. Therefore, the
Range Safety Officer has the right to deny the launch of any rocket for safety reasons.
3. Any team that does not comply with the safety requirements will not be allowed to
launch their rocket.
Any team member who does not agree to any of the rules above may be refused access to
rocket construction or assembly, may not be allowed to attend launches, or may even be
removed from the team if necessary.

91
Appendix C NAR High Power Rocket Safety Code
1. Certification. I will only fly high power rockets or possess high power rocket motors
that are within the scope of my user certification and required licensing.

2. Materials. I will use only lightweight materials such as paper, wood, rubber, plastic,
fiberglass, or when necessary ductile metal, for the construction of my rocket.

3. Motors. I will use only certified, commercially made rocket motors, and will not
tamper with these motors or use them for any purposes except those recommended by
the manufacturer. I will not allow smoking, open flames, nor heat sources within 25
feet of these motors.

4. Ignition System. I will launch my rockets with an electrical launch system, and with
electrical motor igniters that are installed in the motor only after my rocket is at the
launch pad or in a designated prepping area. My launch system will have a safety
interlock that is in series with the launch switch that is not installed until my rocket
is ready for launch, and will use a launch switch that returns to the off position when
released. The function of on-board energetics and firing circuits will be inhibited except
when my rocket is in the launching position.

5. Misfires. If my rocket does not launch when I press the button of my electrical launch
system, I will remove the launcher’s safety interlock or disconnect its battery, and will
wait 60 seconds after the last launch attempt before allowing anyone to approach the
rocket.

6. Launch Safety. I will use a 5-second countdown before launch. I will ensure that a
means is available to warn participants and spectators in the event of a problem. I will
ensure that no person is closer to the launch pad than allowed by the accompanying
Minimum Distance Table. When arming on-board energetics and firing circuits I will
ensure that no person is at the pad except safety personnel and those required for arm-
ing and disarming operations. I will check the stability of my rocket before flight and
will not fly it if it cannot be determined to be stable. When conducting a simultaneous
launch of more than one high power rocket I will observe the additional requirements
of NFPA 1127.

7. Launcher. I will launch my rocket from a stable device that provides rigid guidance
until the rocket has attained a speed that ensures a stable flight, and that is pointed
to within 20 degrees of vertical. If the wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour I will use
a launcher length that permits the rocket to attain a safe velocity before separation
from the launcher. I will use a blast deflector to prevent the motor’s exhaust from
hitting the ground. I will ensure that dry grass is cleared around each launch pad
in accordance with the accompanying Minimum Distance table, and will increase this
distance by a factor of 1.5 and clear that area of all combustible material if the rocket
motor being launched uses titanium sponge in the propellant.

92
 8. Size. My rocket will not contain any combination of motors that total more than
40,960 N-sec (9208 pound-seconds) of total impulse. My rocket will not weigh more at
liftoff than one-third of the certified average thrust of the high power rocket motor(s)
intended to be ignited at launch.

9. Flight Safety. I will not launch my rocket at targets, into clouds, near airplanes, nor on
trajectories that take it directly over the heads of spectators or beyond the boundaries
of the launch site, and will not put any flammable or explosive payload in my rocket. I
will not launch my rockets if wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour. I will comply with
Federal Aviation Administration airspace regulations when flying, and will ensure that
my rocket will not exceed any applicable altitude limit in effect at that launch site.

10. Launch Site. I will launch my rocket outdoors, in an open area where trees, power lines,
occupied buildings, and persons not involved in the launch do not present a hazard,
and that is at least as large on its smallest dimension as one-half of the maximum
altitude to which rockets are allowed to be flown at that site or 1500 feet, whichever is
greater, or 1000 feet for rockets with a combined total impulse of less than 160 N-sec,
a total liftoff weight of less than 1500 grams, and a maximum expected altitude of less
than 610 meters (2000 feet).

11. Launcher Location. My launcher will be 1500 feet from any occupied building or from
any public highway on which traffic flow exceeds 10 vehicles per hour, not including
traffic flow related to the launch. It will also be no closer than the appropriate Minimum
Personnel Distance from the accompanying table from any boundary of the launch site.

12. Recovery System. I will use a recovery system such as a parachute in my rocket so
that all parts of my rocket return safely and undamaged and can be flown again, and
I will use only flame-resistant or fireproof recovery system wadding in my rocket.

13. Recovery Safety. I will not attempt to recover my rocket from power lines, tall trees, or
other dangerous places, fly it under conditions where it is likely to recover in spectator
areas or outside the launch site, nor attempt to catch it as it approaches the ground.

93
 Minimum
Minimum Minimum
Installed Total Equivalent Personnel
Diameter of Personnel
Impulse High Power Distance
Cleared Distance
(Newton-Seconds) Motor Type (Complex
Area (ft.) (ft.)
Rocket2 ) (ft.)
0 — 320.00 H or smaller 50 100 200
320.01 — 640.00 I 50 100 200
640.01 — 1,280.00 J 50 100 200
1,280.01 — 2,560.00 K 75 200 300
2,560.01 — 5,120.00 L 100 300 500
5,120.01 — 10,240.00 M 125 500 1000
10,240.01 — 20,480.00 N 125 1000 1500
20,480.01 — 40,960.00 O 125 1500 2000

Appendix D Matlab Code for Recovery

To calculate the sizes of black powder charges the following MATLAB code was used.
f u n c t i o n [ Powder quantity ] = Black Powder (N, F , L ,K)
% This f u n c t i o n c a l c u l a t e s t h e amount o f b l a c k powder n e c e s s a r y t o d e p l o y
% our p a r a c h u t e s . N i s t h e number o f s h e a r pi n s , F i s th e f o r c e r e q u i r e d t o
% break one s h e a r pin , L i s th e i n t e r n a l l e n g t h between bulkheads , and K i s
% t h e f a c t o r t he amount o f blackpowder w i l l be s c a l e d by t o be s u r e a l l
% p a r a c h u t e s w i l l d e p l o y . Powder quantity i s th e amount o f b l a c k powder
% n e c e s s a r y i n grams .
P ow de r quantity = ( 5 . 1 6 1 ∗ 1 0 ˆ ( − 4 ) ) ∗N∗F∗L∗K; % where 5.161∗10ˆ( −4) i s a
% c o n s t a n t d e r i v e d from t he i d e a l gas law .

94