Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migration of unmigrated content due to installation of a new plugin

Overview

This flight was originally scheduled for June of 2018. It

...

was then scheduled for March 2019.

...

It finally flew on July 6, 2019. This vehicle was a continuation of the work done on Hermes Flight 1.

Image Added

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)

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

 

Flight Data Files

Pyxida

TeleMetrum

 

Marsa

...

 

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

 

...


Parameter

...

Imperial

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
Metric
Mass167.4 lbs75.9 kg
Length12'8"3.86 m
MotorP9100
Maximum Altitude12,000 ft3658 m
Maximum Velocity2038 mph911 m/s

FAA COA Suppliment

PDF
nameMIT Rocket Team March 27,28 Launch COA Supplement.pdf

1-28-2018

Take a look at the fin profiles on the manual page of the RAS Aero website. I think the only styles that are reasonable to assume that we could manufacture are hexagonal, hexagonal blunt-base, and rounded (not including square, because... yeah). With a realistic, if not generous, tip radius of 0.05 inches and a hexagonal profile, I'm getting 83kft out of a 65,000 Ns motor in a 156 lb rocket. This assumes an ISP of ~212 s, which I think is achievable. Playing around with rounded or hexagonal blunt-base yields lower altitudes, mostly in the 65kft range. I think we should keep the target altitude of 80 kft, and be thankful that things have essentially randomly aligned with that goal. I have attached my motor file and simulation file for your consideration. Other happy news: the rocket will reach a max velocity of ~3100 fps at 13kft, which is only around mach 2.9 at that altitude. Not saying that it is trivial to keep the fins on any supersonic rocket, but < mach 3 makes Matthew's life easier.

4-2-2018

Attached are the sim results that I ran on RASAero. Included are the files that I ran the sim with. The total mass and CG were taken from my (Maddie's) latest local OpenRocket file (attached here). The loaded mass is a little different that the latest mass budget suggests, but I have widened the tolerance from 7% to 10% to account for this. -Maddie

Image Removed

Image Removed

Sim files and results: 4-2-18 Sims.zip

OpenRocket file: 4-2-2018.ork

OpenRocket motor file: Insert here

Launch Conditions:

Elevation: 4600 ft

Temperature: 100 F

Barometric Pressure: 29.68 Hg

Wind Speed: 5.5 mph

...