Responsible Engineers: Ben, Sera, Dylan, Sam, Ezra, Emily, Hong, Juan, Nihal

*Note this system was descoped due to its complexity and safety concerns and was replaced by a new staging cone design. This staging cone included dowel pins that interfaced with holes on the bottom lip of the sustainer nozzle to prevent the sustainer from "twisting off" the booster during stage separation. A picture of this design can be seen below.

Purpose of ASIT:

Possible separation mechanisms:

Previous Research: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1tLNmXbTf-7U4gAcfWLIA0tKY9M7hDJ0tfNnUzZUsjvk/edit#slide=id.g163b4058356_0_75https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--9ZwutVredU8o6Q8-siPTgBAkyPWjnj13VRFe6kv1g/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1qsLoEZxI6sGaqtcGwe-9B6oirdFroUk_BiBHpKw73Pw/edit

Current Research:

 

Method

Pros

Cons

Pyrotechnics - Emily, Dylan, Justin

  • Simple

  • Can be tested in blast chamber

  • Simple enough to integrate at launch

  • Blackpowder

Shear Pins - Sera, Ben

  • Simple

  • Easy to integrate at launch

  • Compact

  • Can be light if we don’t need a lot of metal to soak in heat from the second stage ignition

  • Uses some of our energy to separate

  • Cannot be tested on campus, can maybe try with a smaller scale rocket

  • Need to protect first stage from heat/exhaust

Clamp Bands - Kevin, Nihal

  • Well tested and demonstrated.

  • Can be tested 50 million times in quick succession if needed.

  • More complicated, harder to make ourselves

  • Might be difficult to assemble

  • Can be heavy

CO2 - Juan, Sam

  • Work consistently at high altitude

  • Can be tested easily 

  • Heavy

  • Lesser pressure than pyro, needs big tanks for this. Leads to first point.

 

Design Constraints: