Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Goals

Team:

1. Fly to 80,000 ft

2. Recover to reflyable condition

3. Collect data: Nose cone heating throughout flight, load data from parachutes, visual data of parachutes, altitude, acceleration, vibration (NC and lower electronics)

... (Lower electronics?) Recovery:

Add desired landing velocity, landing radius, other expectations 

Structures:

All structures survive flight, nothing breaks, materials survive temperature changes

Avionics: 

Measure altitude & acceleration and actuate necessary flight events

Payload:

Collect data on nose cone heating throughout flight

Propulsion:

Fly to 80,000 ft, motor performs nominally (no CATO, thrust curve within 5%

Flight Data Files

Pyxida

StratoLogger

TeleMetrum

 

Weather

https://weatherspark.com/y/3193/Average-Weather-in-Truth-or-Consequences-New-Mexico-United-States-Year-Round

 

Parameters

Nominal Value

Launch Tower Ht.

 

Launch Site Altitude

1406m

Landing Site Altitude

 

Temperature

68-95

Baro Pressure

29.68 Hg

Latitude

32.9904

Longitude

106.9750

Time

Windspeed

7AM

NNW

Wind:3.728 mph

 

4PM

N

Wind:6.836 mph

 

CAD

 

Video

 

Simulator Files:

12-17-2017

I've spent a few hours digging through RASAero, Open Rocket, BurnSim, the Mass Budget, and hitting all of the above with healthy doses of common sense. Andrew gave me a few good ideas on where to start sanity checking our numbers. I know these values still sound on the high side, but I'm inclined to believe them pending flaws inthesimfiles. I would be very happy to hit 80% of these values though, knowing how these kinds of flights go.
In case anyone was curious,therocksimfilethepreviousrasaeronumberswerebasedoffofstillwas usinganoffaxispistonand was almost 2 feet longer than the current design. This has led to some stability problems with the current design. At Burnout we hit a stability margin of 1.11. As this happens at Mach 3.35 I think we should increase the fin size to compensate.
These files are now correct to the design, as I understand it.
Motor file: 70kNs Rev 6
Composite Fin Can, OD of fin collar 6.25 in, 1/4 thick fins. .75 in edge chamfer .05 in rounding on edges.
Surface Finish: Rough Camouflage Pain
Rocket Length 11 feet 8 inches
GLOW is 158 lbs according to Mass Budget
Aft Closure include Boat Tail to 5.6 in aft diameter
Here are the relevant quantities. 
GLOW: 158 lbs, +/- 14 lbs  
Burnout Altitude: 12,200 ft AGL
Burnout Velocity 3,700 ft/s (Mach 3.35)
Maximum Altitude: 125,600 ft +/- 23,100 ft (from mass deltas)
These values came from some hand runsofRasAero
The next set of values came from OpenRocket on a dataset of 500 runs through Cassandra (Thanks Josh!). The raw values are quite different than the Open Rocket values, but with a healthy fudge factor (screwing with finishes and fin thicknesses) to get supersonic cd's to matchthoseofRasAero, the numbers were similar.Secondsemesterwe should improve Cassandra's aerodynamics. Anyways, Cassandra gives the following
GLOW = 158 lbs
Apogee 131,529 +/- 6,443 ft
Median Apogee = 133,142 (An average flight is pretty close to the average of the flights, which is good)
3-Sigma Altitude = 138,870 ft
Landing Zone = 4.3 miles east of base camp +/- 1.4 miles

...